Diagnosis of myocardial ischemia in hypertensive patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arterial hypertension can provoke a reduction in coronary flow reserve through several mechanisms that are not mutually exclusive (i.e. epicardial coronary artery disease (CAD), left ventricular hypertrophy and structural and/or functional microvascular disease). These different targets of arterial hypertension should be explored with different diagnostic markers. In fact, stress-induced wall motion abnormalities are highly specific for angiographically assessed epicardial CAD, whereas ST segment depression and/or myocardial perfusion abnormalities are frequently found with angiographically normal coronary arteries associated with left ventricular hypertrophy and/or microvascular disease. Exercise-electrocardiography stress test can be used to screen patients with negative maximal test due to its excellent negative predictive value, which is high and comparable in normotensives and hypertensives. When exercise-electrocardiography stress test is positive (or uninterpretable or ambiguous), an imaging stress-echo test is warranted for a reliable identification of significant, prognostically malignant epicardial CAD in view of an ischemia-guided revascularization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".