Long-term follow-up of patients with cardiac syndrome X treated by spinal cord stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term effect of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients with refractory cardiac syndrome X (CSX). METHODS: A prospective, controlled, long-term follow-up was performed of 19 patients with CSX with refractory angina who underwent SCS (SCS group, 5 men, mean (SD) age 60.9 (8.5) years); 9 comparable patients with CSX who refused SCS treatment (3 men, mean (SD) age 60.9 (8.8) years) constituted the control group. Clinical and functional status were assessed at the time of screening for SCS indication (basal evaluation) and at a median (range) follow-up of 36 (15-82) months. RESULTS: The two groups at baseline did not show any difference in clinical characteristics and angina status. All indicators of angina status (angina episode frequency, duration and short-acting nitrate use) improved significantly at follow-up in the SCS group (p<0.001) but not in controls. Functional status, as assessed by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire and a visual analogue scale for quality of life, improved at follow-up in the SCS group (p<0.001 for all scales) but not in controls. Exercise tolerance, exercise-induced angina and ST segment changes also significantly improved in the SCS group but not in controls. CONCLUSIONS: Data show that SCS can be a valid form of treatment for long-term control of angina episodes in patients with refractory CSX.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".