Observer reproducibility and validity of systems for clinical classification of angina pectoris: comparison with radionuclide imaging and coronary angiography
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
OBJECTIVE: To assess reproducibility and validity of clinical classification of angina pectoris (AP) patients. DESIGN: Fifty-six patients scheduled for coronary angiography because of stable AP were classified by two independent observers with regard to (i) type and (ii) severity of chest pain (Canadian Cardiovascular Society, CCS) and (iii) cardiac functional status (New York Heart Association, NYHA). Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) was performed in 55 including measurement of ejection fraction in 46, angiography was undertaken in 51. RESULTS: Observers agreed 100% on the presence (n = 45) or absence (n = 11) of angina. They agreed in 52 (93%), 48 (86%), and 42 (75%) patients with regard to type of pain, CCS grade, and NYHA class, respectively. In the remaining patients, they disagreed by one class only. The positive and negative predictive values of typical/atypical angina for perfusion abnormalities and coronary disease were 55%/82% and 53%/ 82%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Observer agreement was excellent for presence, type, and severity of chest pain but moderate with regard NYHA class. Clinical judgment could not predict with reasonable accuracy abnormal perfusion or coronary artery disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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