MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986462023 · doi:10.1002/clc.4960261110

Practicability and limitations of enhanced external counterpulsation as an additional treatment for angina

2003· article· en· W1986462023 on OpenAlex
Dierk Werner, J. Kropp, Sebastian Schellong, Chris Friedel, Jens‐Uwe Voigt, Josef Ludwig, Werner G. Daniel, Frank A. Flachskampf

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cardiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnginaCardiologyCoronary artery diseaseCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyInternal medicineRevascularizationAtrial fibrillationMyocardial perfusion imagingMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of clinical studies indicates reduction of angina and myocardial ischemia by enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) therapy. However, given the wide range of contraindications and the long duration of treatment, eligibility and practicality issues have not been addressed systematically. HYPOTHESIS: Of all candidates for EECP (patients with drug-refractory angina without possibility of revascularization), the majority either have contraindications or have practical problems complying with the time demands that this therapy imposes. In the rest, EECP leads to satisfactory results. METHODS: During 18 months, every consecutive patient with angina despite medical and interventional therapy was evaluated for EECP at one center. Treated patients underwent a bicycle exercise test and perfusion imaging before and after the standard course of 35 h of EECP. In addition, patients were asked about frequency of angina and nitroglycerin usage before and after EECP, and all patients filled out a final questionnaire 1 year after the end of therapy. RESULTS: Overall, 48 patients were considered candidates for EECP. Of these, 24 were excluded for medical reasons: poor ejection fraction (4), peripheral artery disease (4), anticoagulation (4), and atrial fibrillation (3). Eight further patients declined EECP for lack of time or accommodation. Another 3 of the 16 remaining patients dropped out because of side effects. In the 13 patients who finished the treatment course, weekly anginal episodes were reduced by 48% (p < 0.05), on-demand nitroglycerin puffs were reduced by 51% (p < 0.05), work capacity was improved by 22% (p < 0.05), and the number of reversible perfusion defects in perfusion scans decreased nonsignificantly (-28%). However, 4 of 13 treated patients determined 1 year later that the detriment of loss of time exceeded the benefits of EECP. CONCLUSION: Similar to previous reports, our study confirms the reduction of angina and improvement of work capacity after EECP. However, using established contraindications, approximately two-thirds of patients considered to be candidates had to be excluded, and one-third of the treated patients regarded EECP therapy retrospectively as too time consuming.

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.

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)0.003
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 score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.280 · 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