MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Higher Prevalence of Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Abnormal Atrial Depolarization and Coronary Artery Disease at 18 Months' Post-Exercise Tolerance Testing

2007· article· en· W2051925262 on OpenAlexaff
David H. Spodick, Vignendra Ariyarajah, Sirin Apiyasawat

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Heart Hospital Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseAtrial fibrillationEjection fractionLeft ventricular hypertrophyHazard ratioConfidence intervalHeart failureBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abnormal atrial depolarization, denoted as interatrial block (IAB; P wave >110 ms), is associated with myocardial ischemia during exercise. The authors conducted an 18-month follow-up for cardiovascular events in 31 consecutive patients with IAB and 60 controls without IAB at rest; participants had coronary artery disease and hypertension and had undergone coronary angiography following positive exercise tolerance test (ETT) results. Atrial fibrillation and need for repeat ETT and coronary artery revascularization were significant with IAB (77.4% vs 20%; P<.001). In patients with such events, IAB, left atrial dilatation, left ventricular hypertrophy, increased left ventricular end-diastolic volume, poorer Duke prognostic treadmill (DPT) scores, and significant coronary artery stenoses were predominant. IAB (hazard ratio [HR], 4.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-19.7; P=.02) and DPT scores (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98; P=.03) were independently associated with these events. At 18 months' follow-up, IAB at rest was associated with cardiovascular events among those with known coronary artery disease and hypertension.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.213
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Heart Hospital JournalSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207