Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transmyocardial laser revascularization is a technique for the treatment of patients with chronic angina pectoris that is refractory to medical therapy and who are not eligible for surgical intervention. Percutaneous myocardial revascularization is a less-invasive catheter-based procedure that has been adapted from transmyocardial laser revascularization. Six prospective randomized clinical trials have been performed with transmyocardial laser revascularization and 5 have been performed using percutaneous myocardial revascularization. All of the transmyocardial laser revascularization and 4 of the percutaneous myocardial revascularization studies showed a significant improvement in angina class; however, results for improved survival, increased exercise tolerance, improved ejection fraction, and improved myocardial perfusion were less definitive. Transmyocardial laser revascularization has significant potential for morbidity and mortality. This article summarizes the results of the randomized trials, explains the current theories for the mechanism of transmyocardial laser revascularization, and discusses its current role in treatment for patients, considering the evidence that currently exists.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".