Abstract 16934: Canadian Cardiovascular Society Angina Classification and Change in Quality of Life Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Coronary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) have been developed to support the more rational use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To date, however, the AUC have not been empirically validated. A key component in AUC determination for patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is their symptom burden, as measured by Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina class. We compared the association of CCS class at the time of PCI with improvements in quality of life (QOL) after PCI. Methods: Within a 10-center PCI registry (PRISM [Personalized Risk Information Services Manager] Study), we examined the association between baseline CCS class and 1-year change in QOL, as assessed by the disease-specific and validated Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), in patients undergoing PCI for stable CAD. Results: Of 516 patients undergoing PCI for stable CAD, the mean age was 66 + 9.8 years and 73% were men. Most patients were treated with statins (75%) and beta blockers (66%) prior to PCI. Baseline CCS class of 0, I, II, III, and IV were present in 35%, 9%, 28%, 16% and 11% of patients, respectively. Compared to patients with CCS Class I or II angina, those with class III or IV angina had a lower baseline QOL (55 ± 23 v. 47 ± 24, p Conclusions: Among patients undergoing PCI for non-acute indications, improvements in QOL were similar for those with mild and more severe angina, as assessed by CCS class. CCS class appears to have limited discrimination in predicting the magnitude of QOL benefits in patients undergoing stable PCI.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".