MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055529305 · doi:10.1159/000177326

Prompt Improvement of Left Ventricular Function and Preservation of Topography with Combined Reperfusion and Intravenous Nitroglycerin in Acute Myocardial Infarction

2008· article· en· W2055529305 on OpenAlexaff
Bodh I. Jugdutt, Bogdan L. Schwarz-Michorowski, Wayne Tymchak, Jeffrey R. Burton

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentricular functionMyocardial infarctionMedicineNitroglycerin (drug)CardiologyInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reperfusion alone during acute myocardial infarction (AMI) preserves left ventricular (LV) topography but causes 'stunning', with delayed or no recovery of function. To determine whether adjunctive intravenous nitroglycerin (NTG) accelerates functional recovery, we prospectively measured function and topography by repeated two-dimensional echocardiography between 1 day and 6 months in 5 groups of patients (n = 73) with a first AMI: placebo (group 1), NTG alone (group 2), NTG combined with successful reperfusion after 4 h (group 3) or failed reperfusion (group 4), and successful reperfusion alone (group 5). Asynergy decreased promptly (p < 0.001) and ejection fraction improved (p < 0.001) between day 1 and 6 months in groups 2 and 3 compared to baseline and groups 1, 4 and 5. Infarct expansion and thinning found in group 1 were prevented in groups 2, 3, 4 and 5. Diastolic volume increased in the anterior subgroup 1 but not 2, 3, 4 and 5. This is the first demonstration that reperfusion combined with adjunctive NTG produces earlier, greater and persistent recovery of LV function in addition to attenuation of remodeling in patients after AMI.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiologySame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207