Angina Pectoris: Antianginal Retrospective Therapy Evaluation - The APART Observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To analyse the real life situation with respect to diagnosis, cardiac interventions, and post-interventional treatment as well as clinical course of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and angina. Methods: A retrospective observational study was performed in 2009 including 1075 general practitioners in Germany reporting on the course of 6728 patients with CAD and angina. Results: The median age was 69 and 68% were men, 36% were in CCS class I, 45% in class II, 16% in class III, and 3% in class IV. Most reported comorbidities were hypertension (72%), dyslipidemia (53%), diabetes mellitus (31%), and obesity (25%). Diagnosis of CAD was made in median 4.5 years prior study entry and was catheter-based in 78% of the included patients. Over 91% of the patients receiving invasive diagnostic were treated at least once by coronary revascularisation in median two years before documentation; involving balloon dilatation (40%), bare-metal stent (37%), drug eluting stent (22%), or coronary bypass (32%). Despite successful revascularisation procedures, 63% of all invasively treated patients complained about angina after a median of 10 months. On the average, these patients reported suffering from 2.9 angina attacks per week. Regarding medical therapy for relief of symptoms, 89% of patients received β-blockers. Nevertheless, additional antianginal therapy was given, i.e., short- (59%) and long-acting (37%) nitrates or calcium antagonists (39%), between others. Conclusion: Despite a high rate of invasive diagnostic and intervention and despite optimal medical therapy according to guidelines, more than half of all CAD patients remained or became symptomatic shortly after intervention. Thus, new treatment strategies with focus on the pathomechanism of angina are needed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".