MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2280807198

[Results after placement of coronary stents in protected and not protected coronary trunk vs revascularization surgery].

2006· article· en· W2280807198 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Javier Farell Campa, José Antonio Palomo Villada, Jesús Flores Flores, Belinda González Díaz, Raúl Astudillo Sandoval, Armando Montoya Silvestre, Joel Estrada Gallegos

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous transluminal coronary angioplastyCardiologyInternal medicineBypass surgeryDiabetes mellitusRevascularizationAngioplastyAnginaUnstable anginaCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyTrunkSurgeryStentPercutaneousCoronary heart diseaseMyocardial infarctionArtery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We analyzed the clinical and angiographic results, as well as the follow-up of patients with left coronary trunk disease (LCT) subjected to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with stenting and compared them with those subjected to myocardial revascularization surgery (MRV). MATERIAL AND METHODS: From May 1998 to October 2003, 3,680 procedures were performed in 2,900 patients; 30 of them were selected to form group PTCA, 17 protected with stenting and 13 not protected, as they were not suited for surgery due to inappropriate bedding and rejection by the patient. Another group of 30 patients (MRV) with coronary bypass, average of 3.2 grafts. Age ranged from 45 to 74 years (65.7 +/- 11.5) for the PTCA and for MRV from 49 to 77 years (66.9 +/- 7.1); 25 men (83%) in the PTCA group and 23 men (76%) in the MRV group. Systemic arterial hypertension in both groups: 10 (33%), smoking in both groups: 17 (56%); diabetes mellitus PTCA: 11 (36%) and MRV: 3 (10%); hypercholesterolemia PTCA: 19 (63%), MRV 9 (30%); unstable angina according to the Canadian Society of Cardiology (CSC) for PTCA: 17 (56%), MRV; 16 (53%); multivascular disease in both groups: 20 (66%). Average percentage of obstruction was of 90 +/- 6.3%. FE for PTCA, 30 to 55% (40.3 +/- 8.7) and for MRV, 38 to 67% (48.6 +/- 6.1). RESULTS: Immediate success in 26 patients (87%) for the PTCA group and in 28 patients (90%) for the MRV group. COMPLICATIONS: PTCA, 4 (13%) and MRV, 20 (66%). Perioperative IAM for PTCA, 2 (6%) and for MRV, 8 (26%). Mortality in the PTCA group was of 4 patients (13%) and in the MRV group of 3 (10%). Follow-up for PTCA, 19.4 months, for MRV of 20 +/- 3, obtained in 26 of the whole group. Late survival adverse events (DEATH or IAM): PTCA, 25 (83.3%), one patient with IAM; MRV, 20 (66.6%), one patient died during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Placement of stents in the left coronary trunk disease is a feasible procedure as an alternative for myocardial revascularization, with a low rate of complications in cases of conserved ventricular function despite their higher risk profile.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→