The international EECP patient registry (IEPR): Design, methods, baseline characteristics, and acute results
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 1998, the International EECP Patient Registry (IEPR) was organized to document patient characteristics, safety, and efficacy during the treatment period, and long-term outcomes. All centers with EECP facilities were invited to join the voluntary Registry. The Registry population comprises all patients starting EECP therapy for treatment of angina pectoris in participating centers. HYPOTHESIS: The study was undertaken to determine whether EECP is a safe and effective treatment for patients with angina pectoris regardless of their suitability for revascularization by more conventional techniques. METHODS: After 18 months of operation, 43 clinical centers representing over half of clinical sites using the EECP system contributed cases. The data reported here were collected before the first EECP treatment and upon completion of final treatment. EECP can be used for patients ineligible for either coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), as well as for those who prefer noninvasive treatment to avoid or delay revascularization. In this report, patients considered to be candidates for revascularization are compared with those not considered suitable. RESULTS: Of the 978 patients analyzed, 70% had Canadian Cardiovascular Society Classification class III or IV angina before starting treatment, and 62% used nitroglycerin. Most (81%) had been previously revascularized, and 69% were considered unsuited for either PCI or CABG at the time of starting EECP. A full treatment course (usually 35 h) was completed in 86%, of whom 81% reported improvement of at least one angina class immediately after the last treatment. CONCLUSION: In a broad patient population, EECP has been shown to be a safe and effective treatment.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| 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 it