Prevalence and Clinical Significance of Up-Sloping ST-Segment Depression in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Up-sloping ST-segment depression has not been historically considered as representing ischemia as this electrocardiographic change can be seen in normal subjects during exercise stress testing or tachycardia. We aimed to clarify the prevalence and clinical significance of up-sloping ST-segment depression in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 330 consecutive patients with NSTEMI who underwent coronary angiography. ST-segment depression ≥ 0.05 mV in more than two contiguous leads was recorded and categorized as being up-sloping or non-up-sloping. RESULTS: Of 330 patients, 109 patients (33%) had ST-segment depression; six of these patients had up-sloping ST-segment depression. All six patients with up-sloping ST-segment depression had a culprit lesion and underwent in-hospital revascularization. Three of these six patients had a culprit lesion in the left anterior descending artery; the culprit lesion in two others was in the left circumflex artery, while one patient had severe three-vessel disease. No statistically significant difference was found in the rate of in-hospital revascularization between patients with up-sloping and non-up-sloping ST-segment depression (100% vs. 75%, P = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with up-sloping ST-segment depression had a comparable rate of in-hospital revascularization compared to those with non-up-sloping ST-segment depression, suggesting that up-sloping ST-segment depression should be recognized as a manifestation of ischemia in NSTEMI.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".