Spinal cord stimulation for refractory stable angina pectoris in patients with chronic pacemaker treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a safe treatment modality in patients with severe angina pectoris. We studied possible interactions of procedures in patients treated with both, SCS for angina pectoris and permanent pacemaker (PPM) treatment for bradyarrhythmias. Since January 2001, we performed SCS in 61 patients (pts.) (48 men, 13 women, age 65±8 years, bmi 27±9 kg/qm). Nine pts. additionally needed PPM treatment for bradyarrhythmias. All pts. had severe angina pectoris (III to IV [39/22] according to Canadian Cardiovascular Society) under considered medication due to angiographically documented end-stage coronary artery disease (CAD), which could not be treated interventionally. After 3 to 5 days of successful test stimulation using an epidural lead a commercially available implantable pulse generator is placed in a subcutaneous pouch below the costal arch. In 58 pts. (95%) angina pectoris could be reduced significantly. In 3 pts. the lead was removed because of ineffectivity during the test period. There was no interaction between neurostimulation and PPM treatment during follow-up of 1 to 38 (mean 20±12) months. DDD pacemaker were used in bipolar sensing mode: n=4 Medtronic, n=3 Biotronik, n=2 Guidant. SCS has proved to be a safe procedure in patients with severe angina pectoris and PPM treatment with bipolar sensing mode.
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) | 0.000 | 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".