Hyperhomocysteinemia and the risk of restenosis after coronary artery stenting: fact or fiction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of restenosis after coronary artery stent placement is approximately 38%. An interesting view has been stipulated: that hyperhomocysteinemia may be partly responsible for in-stent restenosis. Epidemiologic evidence exists that is persuasive in suggesting that individuals with occlusive vascular disease have a higher blood homocysteine concentration than control subjects. Thus, elevated plasma levels of homocysteine have been implicated as a risk factor for coronary artery disease. The composition of the current clinical knowledge on the question of whether hyperhomocysteinemia is a significant factor for restenosis of coronary artery stents consists of several trials with different approaches, objectives and outcomes. However, the current studies that have been published in the peer-reviewed medical literature have not reached a consensus as to whether an elevated plasma level of homocysteine is an independent risk factor responsible for restenosis following stent implantation. Our current knowledge as to the place of plasma homocysteine levels in the development of in-stent restenosis seems incomplete, and in the realm of homocysteine and restenosis of stents, there are plenty of questions that still remain to be answered.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".