Intracoronary brachytherapy, a promising treatment option for diabetic patients: Results from a European multicenter registry (RENO)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite advances in the interventional treatment of coronary disease, diabetics still have double the case fatality rate as nondiabetics. The purpose of this analysis from the Radiation in Europe With Novoste (RENO) registry was to assess the clinical and angiographic 6-month outcome of diabetic patients in comparison to nondiabetic patients after localized beta-radiation. A total of 1,098 patients (83.8% with in-stent restenosis) treated with the Novoste Beta-Cath system in Europe were enrolled in the RENO registry. Diabetes was, irrespective of the type of lesion treated, no significant risk factor for major adverse cardiac events or target vessel revascularization. Individuals with diabetes (n = 256) and without diabetes (n = 833) displayed no significant differences concerning clinical or angiographic endpoints. Vascular brachytherapy appears to be the first technique to even out the increased risk of diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions in the routine clinical setting. Thus, intracoronary brachytherapy represents a promising treatment option for diabetic patients.
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) | 0.000 | 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".