Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Graft coronary artery disease is the leading cardiac cause of death in patients who have undergone cardiac transplantation. Due to denervation, classic symptoms of angina are not reliable. Many transplant centers have a protocol of routine annual surveillance cardiac angiography because treatment options are limited, especially with advanced disease. Angiography is an assessment of the arterial lumen, however, and can miss nonfocal disease. This paper reviews invasive and noninvasive diagnostic tools for graft coronary artery disease. Intravascular ultrasound is the most sensitive, but the cost and lack of widespread expertise make it unpopular. Noninvasive techniques have been studied. An ideal test would be sufficiently sensitive to detect disease and allow for prognostic information. Dobutamine echocardiography is the most sensitive noninvasive test but can have a high false-positive rate. It is also not universally available. Exercise nuclear imaging is specific and can be used as a confirmatory test in patients with positive dobutamine echocardiograms. RECENT FINDINGS: Computed tomographic imaging and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging are exciting new modalities but require further study. SUMMARY: There is no test sensitive and specific enough yet that can be confidently used to replace coronary angiography.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".