Clinical relevance of myocardial bridging severity: single center experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myocardial bridging refers to intramyocardial systolic compression of a segment of an epicardial coronary artery. We aimed to identify the clinical significance of myocardial bridging by assessing the clinical presentation in non-obstructive coronary artery disease among a cohort of consecutive patients presenting for coronary angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of our institution's database between September 2002 and March 2005 was conducted to review coronary angiography reports of 14,416 patients. The study group included 226 patients (prevalence=1.57%) with isolated myocardial bridging and <50% stenosis in the non-bridged arteries. Cases with myocardial bridging were classified according to the percentage of systolic compression of the left anterior descending artery into group I (<50% compression), group II (50-70% compression) and group III (compression >or= 70%). RESULTS: Mean age was 57.6+/-15.5 years; 59% were men. The mean duration of follow-up was 12+/-2 months. The left anterior descending was the most common site of bridging (210, 93%). There was a significant difference between groups I and III with respect to the percentage of patients who presented with non-fatal myocardial infarction (P=0.02). Unstable angina had the highest association with myocardial bridging, but there was no significance among the level of myocardial bridging severity and the clinical presentation of angina. CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial bridging is not a benign variation of coronary anatomy. It is associated with angina and myocardial infarction in patients with >or= 70% systolic compression. The bridged segment may be a cause of enhanced atherosclerotic plaque formation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".