Distribution of left ventricular ejection fraction in angina patients with severe coronary artery disease not amenable to revascularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the number of angina patients with severe coronary artery disease not amenable to revascularization increases, new therapies will be developed. How patients with depressed compared to normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) will respond to new therapies may differ. HYPOTHESIS: We conducted a retrospective chart review to determine the distribution of LVEF in angina patients with severe coronary artery disease (three-vessel disease with >50% stenosis major epicardial vessels or >50% stenosis left main) not amenable to revascularization. METHODS: Patients underwent cardiac catheterization between 2004 and 2009. LVEF, measured by echocardiography, nuclear-gated imaging or radioventriculography within 6 months of catheterization, was recorded. Demographics, symptoms, risk factors, past myocardial infarction, catheterization results, medications, and the Duke Coronary Artery Jeopardy Score were recorded. RESULTS: Eight thousand six hundred and ninety-nine patient charts were reviewed; 124 met criteria. There was a continuous, and not bimodal, distribution of LVEF. Fifty-eight patients (47%) in the normal LVEF group were compared to 66 patients (53%) in the abnormal LVEF group (<50%). The two groups were statistically different only with respect to shortness of breath as a presenting symptom and diagnosis of congestive heart failure during index hospitalization. Follow-up mortality was high and did not differ between LVEF groups (35% vs. 34%). CONCLUSION: There is a wide distribution of LVEF among angina patients not amenable to revascularization. A novel finding of this study showed that mortality was high regardless of LVEF. As new therapies for angina are developed, attention will need to be paid to how such therapies affect these two patient groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".