Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease and Angina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to investigate the relationship between coronary artery disease (CAD), angina, and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction enrolled in the irbesartan in patients with heart failure and preserved systolic function (I-Preserve) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The mean follow-up period for the 4128 patients enrolled in I-Preserve was 49.5 months. Patients were divided into 4 mutually exclusive groups according to history of CAD and angina: patients with no history of CAD or angina (n=2008), patients with no history of CAD but a history of angina (n=649), patients with a history of CAD but no angina (n=468), and patients with a history of CAD and angina (n=1003); patients with no known CAD or angina were the reference group. After adjustment for other prognostic variables using Cox proportional-hazard models, patients with CAD but no angina were found to be at higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.58 [1.22-2.04]; P<0.01) and sudden death (HR, 2.12 [1.33-3.39]; P<0.01), compared with patients with no CAD or angina. Patients with CAD and angina were also at higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.29 [1.05-1.59]; P=0.02) and sudden death (HR, 1.83 [1.24-2.69]; P<0.01) compared with the same reference group and had the highest risk of unstable angina or myocardial infarction (HR, 5.84 [3.43-9.95]; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction and CAD are at higher risk of all-cause mortality and sudden death when compared with those without CAD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00095238.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".