Predictors of Benefit in Angina Patients One Year after Completing Enhanced External Counterpulsation: Initial Responders to Treatment versus Nonresponders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) has been shown to reduce Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class. This study examines the factors that affect the reduction at 1 year, especially in patients who do not demonstrate an initial response. The data of 2,007 consecutive patients enrolled in the International EECP Patient Registry were analyzed. After 36.6 +/- 4.9 h of EECP, angina was reduced by at least one class in 82.7%. At 1 year, 35.4% of initial nonresponders and 70.6% of responders remained improved by at least one angina class and free of major adverse cardiovascular events. Multivariate predictors of 1-year benefit are initial response to treatment (odds ratio 4.5, 95% CI 3.5-5.8), baseline angina class compared with class IV (odds ratios: class I 2.1, CI 0.93-4.81; class II 0.62, CI 0.43-0.87; class III 0.80, CI 0.62-1.01) and no history of congestive heart failure (odds ratio 1.41, CI 1.14-1.74).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".