Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective-To evaluate the eVects of chronic coronary occlusion on the accuracy of low dose dobutamine echocardiography in predicting recovery of dysfunctional myocardium after revascularisation.Design-Retrospective study.Setting-Tertiary referral centre.Patients-53 consecutive patients with > 70% stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) and regional ventricular dysfunction (group 1, non-occluded LAD; group 2, occluded LAD) who underwent dobutamine echocardiography.Interventions-26 patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting and 27 had percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.Main outcome measures-Baseline studies before revascularisation included cross sectional echocardiography at rest and during dobutamine infusion (5-10 µg/kg/min), and coronary angiography.The dobutamine study was performed mean (SD) 35 (28) days before revascularisation.Echocardiography at rest was repeated 90 (48) days after revascularisation.Results-Of 296 dysfunctional segments, 63 in group 1 (43%; 63/146) and 69 in group 2 (46%; 69/150) (NS) improved at follow up.Mean (SD) regional wall motion score index decreased from 1.97 (0.48) (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 2.93) before revascularisation to 1.74 (0.52) (95% CI 0.70 to 2.78) at follow up in group 1 (p = 0.001), and from 2.12 (0.41) (95% CI 1.30 to 2.98) to 1.88 (0.36) (95% CI 1.16 to 2.60) in group 2 (p = 0.0006).In group 1, sensitivity (87% v 52%; p < 0.0001), negative predictive value (88% v 65%; p = 0.001), and accuracy (77% v 64%; p = 0.01) were all significantly higher than in group 2, despite the angiographic evidence of collaterals in patients with occluded vessels.Conclusions-Dobutamine echocardiography shows reduced sensitivity in predicting recovery of dysfunctional myocardium supplied by totally occluded vessels.Thus caution should be used in selecting such patients for revascularisation on the basis of a viability assessment made in this way.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".