Effectiveness of the GRACE risk score according to troponin elevation in patients admitted with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: a post hoc analysis of the UKGRIS parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of risk stratification using the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) Risk Score (GRS) for patients presenting to hospital with suspected non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) according to troponin elevation is unknown. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a phase 3 parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial (UK GRACE Risk Score, UKGRIS) of adult patients presenting with suspected NSTEACS to 42 hospitals in England between 9 March 2017 and 30 December 2019, with hospitals randomised (1:1) to standard care or according to the GRS and associated guidelines. Coprimary outcome measures were use of guideline-recommended management and time to the composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, new-onset heart failure hospitalisation or readmission for cardiovascular event at a minimum of 24 months follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 3050 patients were randomised in UKGRIS, of whom 2602 had troponin elevation. The relative effect of GRS compared with standard care on the uptake of guideline-recommended care was greater for participants with troponin elevation compared with those without (relative OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.00, p<0.01). The time to the first composite event was not improved by the GRS among participants with (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.14) or without troponin elevation (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.64), with no interaction (relative HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08, p=0.14 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: For suspected NSTEACS, the effect of the GRS compared with standard care on uptake of recommended processes in those with elevated troponin was higher than in those without. However, this did not translate into a reduction in the composite primary or secondary outcomes at 24 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN29731761.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".