MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chronic Angina Pectoris: Inadequacies of Current Therapy

2004· review· en· W2042528498 on OpenAlexaff
John O. Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Geriatric Cardiology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnginaHemodynamicsPopulationCardiologyInternal medicineQuality of life (healthcare)Intensive care medicineDrugPharmacologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic angina is a major medical problem in the United States with more than 6 million patients affected, a number that will increase substantially because of the progressive aging of the population. The annual mortality rate for patients with chronic angina is approximately 2%, but is much higher in certain subsets of patients, particularly the elderly. Angina is also associated with major social and economic burdens. Because of poor symptom control and hemodynamic, as well as other drug side effects, angina is commonly associated with a poor quality of life. No new class of drug has been available for angina treatment in more than two decades, and current medications frequently fail to provide adequate symptom control. Thus, the majority of patients are taking two or three antianginal medications. New agents that modulate myocardial metabolism have shown antianginal efficacy, a favorable side-effect profile, and an absence of hemodynamic effects.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Geriatric CardiologySame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207