MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The immediate and long‐term outcome of enhanced external counterpulsation in treatment of chronic stable refractory angina

2006· article· en· W2061977012 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Poay Huan Loh, Amala A. Louis, Jonathan Windram, Alan S. Rigby, Jocelyn F. Cook, S. Hurren, N. P. NIKOLAY, J. L. Caplin, John G.F. Cleland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Internal Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyInterquartile rangeAnginaInternal medicineObservational studyCardiologyRefractory (planetary science)Adverse effectProspective cohort studyRevascularizationTolerabilitySurgeryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Treatment of angina recalcitrant to conventional pharmacological therapy and revascularization remains problematic. Safe, effective and affordable treatments with high patient acceptability are desirable. Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) may fulfil these criteria better than many other proposed interventions. OBJECTIVE: To examine the immediate and long-term effect of EECP in treatment of chronic stable refractory angina. DESIGN: Prospective observational study of consecutive patients treated with EECP and follow-up for 1 year. SETTING: Teaching hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina grading, weekly angina frequency and glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) use. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were treated with EECP and 58 completed a course of treatment. Further analysis is confined to those who completed EECP. About 52% of patients suffered from CCS III and IV angina prior to EECP. Immediately post-EECP, angina improved by at least one CCS class in 86% and by two classes in 59%. At 1-year follow-up, sustained improvement in CCS was observed in 78% of the patients. The median weekly angina frequency and GTN use were significantly reduced immediately after EECP [7 (4-14) vs. 1 (0-4) episodes per week and 7 (2-16) vs. 0 (0-2) times per week respectively, P < 0.0001; data in median (interquartile range)]. The reduction was sustained at 1-year follow-up. In 48 patients, their mean exercise time improved significantly after EECP [301 +/- 130 s vs. 379 +/- 147 s, P < 0.0001]. Major adverse treatment-related events were rare. CONCLUSION: This study shows that for patients who fail to respond to conventional measures, a high proportion gain symptomatic benefit from EECP.

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)0.001
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations38
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Internal MedicineSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207