Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To describe health status outcomes at 4 years for a cohort of elderly patients with cardiac disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcomes Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease, an outcomes initiative capturing all patients undergoing cardiac catheterization in Alberta, Canada, health status was measured using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and crude and risk-adjusted outcomes were determined and compared for patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) vs. medical therapy. Response rates among surviving, consenting patients were 64.8% for patients <70 years (n=7883), 77.3% for patients aged 70-79 years (n=2940), and 77.7% for patients >or=80 years of age (n=439). For patients aged <70 years, and those aged 70-79 years, for all dimensions of the SAQ, scores were significantly better for patients treated with revascularization procedures than with medical therapy. For patients over the age of 80 years, scores for patients treated with CABG in particular were significantly better, with the exception of exertional capacity. At 3 years, all scores remained stable or improved, and continued to favour revascularization. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients undergoing revascularization have better health status at 4 years than do those in the same age group who do not undergo revascularization. These findings suggest that age should not deter against revascularization given the combined survival and quality-of-life benefits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".