Correlation between coronary microvascular function and angina status in patients with stable microvascular angina.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Classical anti-ischemic drugs are the first-line form of treatment in patients with microvascular angina (MVA), but they often fail to achieve a satisfactory control of angina symptoms. It is unknown whether there is any relation between improvement of angina status and changes in microvascular function induced by classical anti-ischemic drugs in MVA patients. AIM: To assess whether, in MVA patients, the effects of classical anti-ischemic drugs on symptoms and quality of life (QoL) are related to changes in coronary microvascular function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 51 patients (59±10 years; 15 men) with MVA. Coronary blood flow (CBF) response to adenosine (ADO) and to cold pressor test (CPT), Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and EuroQoL scale were assessed at baseline, in pharmacological washout, and after 12 months under anti-ischemic therapy. Patients were divided into 2 groups: (1) Group 1 included patients with no improvement of QoL (EuroQoL score change < 10 points); (2) Group 2 included patients with QoL improvement (increase in EuroQoL score ≥ 10 points). RESULTS: At baseline, the 2 groups were similar in age, gender, cardiovascular risk factors, CBF response to ADO and to CPT, SAQ and EuroQoL scores. At follow-up the 2 groups differed only for beta blockers use (27% vs. 88% in group 1 and 2, respectively; p < 0.001). A significant improvement in SAQ score was observed only in group 2. CBF response to both ADO and CPT showed a similar improvement in the 2 groups. No relation was found between changes in coronary microvascular function and in angina status. CONCLUSIONS: In MVA patients beta-blockers are more effective than other anti-ischemic drugs in improving angina symptoms. The improvement of angina status does not seem to be mediated by changes in coronary microvascular function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".