Effect of Enhanced External Counterpulsation (EECP) on Exercise Time Duration and Functional Capacity in Patients with Refractory Angina Pectoris.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) is a noninvasive technique used for patients with refractory angina pectoris. There are controversial data on the effectiveness of EECP in improving patients with refractory stable angina. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of EECP for the treatment of patients with refractory angina pectoris. METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients with refractory angina pectoris were treated with EECP, and their symptoms, echocardiographic measures, treadmill exercise test parameters, and Canadian Cardiovascular Society Class were evaluated before and immediately after EECP. The patients were followed up for 6months post treatment. RESULTS: There were significant differences regarding total exercise time before and after treatment (p value < 0.001). The patients showed a significant reduction in angina classes III and IV immediately after EECP (p value < 0.001); for most of the patients, these beneficial effects were sustained for 6 months (p value = 0.010). There was no significant improvement in the echocardiographic parameters. CONCLUSION: EECP decreased symptoms and increased total exercise time in our study population. These beneficial effects were sustained for 6 months.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".