MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7083700634 · doi:10.58931/cct.2025.129

Secondary Prevention After Myocardial Infarction: Bridging Evidence to Practice

2025· article· en· W7083700634 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Cardiology Today · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Eye Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecondary preventionMyocardial infarctionAcute coronary syndromeBridging (networking)Adverse effectClinical PracticeClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has advanced significantly over the past years, with various strategies shown to improve patient survival and reduce cardiovascular (CV) adverse events. An expanding body of literature supports the efficacy of both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic approaches after acute myocardial infarction (MI). This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the secondary prevention strategies after acute MI in the modern era, with a particular focus on recent guidelines and their application in Canadian healthcare practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Cardiology TodaySame topicOphthalmology and Eye DisordersFrench-language works237,207