Enhanced External Counterpulsation Is an Effective Treatment for Depression in Patients With Refractory Angina Pectoris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) on depression in patients with refractory angina pectoris (Canadian Cardiovascular Society class 2-4). METHOD: The study was a prospective observational investigation with a 2-month control period preceding the EECP therapy (to minimize a possible effect of the regression-toward-the-mean phenomenon). The patients were examined 2 months before and just before EECP and just after, 3 months after, and 12 months after EECP. Depression was assessed using the Major Depression Inventory and the ICD-10. During EECP, 3 sets of cuffs were fastened around the lower extremities and were inflated sequentially to a pressure of 260 mm Hg in each diastole for 60 minutes 5 days a week for 7 weeks (35 sessions). The study was conducted at a regional hospital in Denmark from May 2006 to January 2011. RESULTS: Fifty patients with angina pectoris and an abnormal coronary angiography, with no possibility for revascularization, were included (72% men, mean age of 63 years) between May 2006 and January 2011. The prevalence of depression before EECP was 18%, just after was 2%, 3 months after was 2%, and 12 months after was 4% (P = .013). The depressive state was more severe at a lower age (P = .016). No significant predictors of effect of EECP on depression were found (P > .05), and no association was detected between decline in depressive state and chest pain (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that EECP is an effective treatment for depression in patients with refractory angina pectoris, that depression is more severe in younger patients, and that the effect of EECP on depression is not related to the effect on chest pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01112163.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".