A MODIFIED REGIMEN OF EXTRACORPOREAL CARDIAC SHOCK WAVE THERAPY (CSWT) FOR TREATMENT OF CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Our purpose was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a new cardiac shock wave therapy (CSWT) treatment regimen with a shorter duration. Methods A total of 55 patients with severe coronary artery disease (CAD) were randomly divided into treatment group A (n=20) and group B (n=21) and control groups (n=14). The control group received only medical therapy. In group A patients were treated for 1 week out of 4, and CSWT was performed 3 times on days 1, 3, and 5. The total duration of treatment was 3 months. In group B, patients underwent 3 CSWT sessions/week, and nine treatment sessions were completed within 1 month. Primary outcome measurement were 6-min walk test (6MWT). Other measurements like Canadian Cardiology Society (CCS) grading of angina, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification, Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), nitroglycerin dosage (times/week), regional wall motion, peak systolic strain rate (PSSR), myocardial perfusion imaging (MRI) score were also evaluated. Results After following for 12 months, the 6MWT, CCS grading of angina, dosage of nitroglycerin, NYHA classification, and SAQ scores were all significantly improved in group A and B compared to control group. Group A and B also showed significant improvement over control group in peak systolic strain rate (PSSR) and myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) under resting and load conditions. There was no significant difference in 6MWT between group A and B as well as other measurements. Conclusions A CSWT protocol with 1 month treatment duration showed similar therapeutic efficacy compared to a protocol of 3 months duration.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".