Association of cardiac ischemic score and coronary collateral circulation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronary collateral circulation maintains myocardial perfusion in coronary atherosclerotic disease. The indicators of cardiac ischemia, (Angina pectoris on exertion, during emotion, previous myocardial infarction and prior coronary intervention) are associated with presence of coronary collateral circulation. In this prospective observational cross sectional study, 128 patients with history of angina pectoris on exertion and or during emotion and or myocardial infarction and or previous coronary intervention were enrolled. The cardiac ischemic score (range 1-4) was calculated by adding 1 point for each of the above four clinical factors, which can be easily assessed. Presence of coronary collaterals in coronary angiogram was defined as Rentrop grade ≥1. Patients were divided into two groups. Group A patients having Rentrop grade 0 and Group B patients are with collateral circulation, having Rentrop grade 1-3. Patients having cardiac ischemic score (range 1-4) are compared in these groups. Maximum (83.3%) patients of Group B with coronary collateral circulation had cardiac ischemic score 2-4, but majority (86.4%) of Group A patients without collaterals showed the score only 1. Thus the cardiac ischemic score is strongly associated with the presence of coronary collaterals.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".