(6):611-5. DOI:10.1503/cmaj.1050077 Guidelines for STEMI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
adaptation of the ST-elevation myo-cardial infarction (STEMI) guidelines. They have appropriately emphasized the importance of time to reperfusion, whether thrombolysis or primary per-cutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is used. Although primary PCI may be superior to thrombolysis when per-formed in a timely manner, this ben-efit may be attenuated or lost alto-gether when PCI is delayed more than 60 minutes.2 However, it may be possi-ble to derive the benefits of primary PCI without the inherent treatment delay by administering thrombolysis followed by immediate transfer for PCI. This strategy, termed “facilitated PCI, ” may be the optimal mode of reperfusion for many patients in Canada, where interventional centres are regionalized. Although early stud-ies failed to show a benefit of routine PCI immediately after thrombolysis,3 PCI technology has changed consider-ably in recent years. More recent stud-ies have indicated that facilitated PCI may indeed be safe and effective,4 but larger studies are needed to provide definitive answers. The TRANSFER-AMI trial, initi-ated by Canadian investigators and funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, will randomly assign approximately 1200 high-risk STEMI patients treated with thrombolysis in non-PCI hospitals to be transferred im-mediately for facilitated PCI or to re-ceive standard care. This study could have a significant impact on the treat-ment of STEMI in Canada, and we strongly encourage Canadian centres to participate (for further information, see
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.454 | 0.301 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".