MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023528007 · doi:10.1159/000047313

Changes in Myocardial Perfusion after Transmyocardial Laser Revascularization in Patients with End-Stage Angina pectoris

2000· article· en· W2023528007 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Magdalena Kostkiewicz, Paweł Rudziński, Wiesława Tracz, A Dziatkowiak

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiologyMedicineAnginaInternal medicinePerfusionRevascularizationMyocardial revascularizationStage (stratigraphy)Coronary artery diseaseMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the present study was to analyze the effects of transmyocardial laser revascularization (TMLR) on myocardial perfusion. The value of (99m)Tc-MIBI scintigraphy in the detection of changes in perfusion of the lased and nonlased segments was assessed as well. In 15 patients before TMLR and then 3 and 6 months afterwards, MIBI scintigraphy and a stress test were carried out. At the beginning of the study, all patients were classified as having angina pectoris class III or IV (according to the criteria of the Canadian Cardiac Society); their ejection fraction was >30%. The parameters of the stress test increased significantly in 70% of the patients. Cardiac scintigraphy revealed improved perfusion of 33.7% of the transient defects within 3 months after TMLR which persisted at 6 months with a clear trend towards further improvement in the lased segments. TMLR has been found to be particularly beneficial in patients in whom other invasive methods of treatment cannot be applied.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiologySame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207