Charakterisierung der dilatativen Koronaropathie bei Patienten mit und ohne stenosierende koronare Herzkrankheit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The term "coronary ectasia" describes the dilatation of one or more coronary artery segments with the signs of an impaired coronary blood flow. The prevalence, clinical significance and necessity of treatment of such a lesion is unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Diagnostic coronary angiographies of 7101 patients (2131 women and 4970 men) were retrospectively evaluated for the presence of dilated coronary segments. Prevalence, age- and gender distribution, cardiovascular risk factors, clinical symptoms, CRP-concentrations, prevalence of myocardial infarction as well as the coronary morphology of patients with coronary ectasia were studied. The occurrence of myocardial infarction in this group was compared to that in a control group consisting of patients with stenotic coronary artery disease. RESULTS: The prevalence of coronary ecstasy was 1.4 % (women: 0.56 %; men: 1.79 %), mean age of patients was 63.5 +/- 10.5 years. The right coronary artery was most frequently involved (RCA: 97 %, LAD: 30 %, RCX: 23 %, LCA: 35 %). In patients with one-vessel disease the right coronary artery was exclusively affected. In 85.1 % the dilatation of coronary segments was associated with stenotic coronary artery disease. 73.3 % of the patients with coronary ectasias suffered from angina, 33.7 % CCS (Canadian Cardiovascular Society) class III and IV. Angina in patients with coronary ecstasy did not differ from that of patients with stenotic coronary artery disease only. Patients with coronary ectasias had a higher incidence of myocardial infarction than patients with stenotic coronary heart disease (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Coronary ectasia is a relatively rare entity and often associated with stenosis. Angina is a common symptom. Patients with coronary ectasias seem to suffer more frequently from myocardial infarctions than patients with only stenotic coronary heart disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.012 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".