MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095441264 · doi:10.1136/heart.88.6.591

Imaging in aortoarteritis

2002· article· en· W2095441264 on OpenAlexaff
Kavassery Mahadevan Krishnamoorthy, Anil Patle

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Thrombus and Embolism
Canadian institutionsSAIT Polytechnic
FundersInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineGirlRadiologyCardiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To assess hypertension control in patients admitted to hospital for an acute coronary event and to investigate the influence on prognosis of controlling hypertension before hospital discharge. Design: Multicentre retrospective cohort study. Methods: The medical records were examined of all patients admitted in 77 cardiological centres on January 1998 for myocardial infarction or unstable angina and who survived. Clinical characteristics, blood pressure at hospital discharge, and cardiovascular events during a six month follow up were recorded. Main outcome measures: Cardiovascular deaths and non-fatal myocardial infarction. Results: Data were available in 1247 patients. At discharge, 411 (32.9%) had uncontrolled hypertension; among these, 276 (22.1%) were uncontrolled on the basis of systolic blood pressure alone. Forty three cardiovascular deaths and 20 non-fatal myocardial infarcts occurred during follow up. In a multivariate analysis, age, left ventricular ejection fraction, previous history of cardiovascular disease, and isolated systolic hypertension (odds ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 3.37) were associated with the outcome. Conclusions: 22.1% of patients admitted to hospital for an acute coronary syndrome have uncontrolled isolated systolic hypertension on discharge. This appears to be an independent predictor of cardiovascular outcome. . . . . . .

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeartSame topicAortic Thrombus and EmbolismFrench-language works237,207