Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Research indicates that successful treatment of angina is associated with improved patient quality of life. This pharmacist-conducted patient survey sought to assess patients' overall satisfaction with their current angina therapies. Methods: Patients in Quebec, Alberta and Ontario taking nitrates for angina were asked if they would be willing to participate in the Symptomatic Coronary Artery Disease (SCAD) survey administered by study pharmacists. Results of the study survey were sent to the research lead and tabulated. Results: A total of 208 surveys were completed. Almost 42% of patients reported at least 1 angina episode per week. When asked to choose the category that best described the frequency of their chest pain controlled by medication, 30% of patients indicated “on occasion,” “rarely” or “never.” More than one-quarter of respondents felt that the impact of their heart condition on quality of life was significantly or extremely negative. Conclusions: Current guidelines state that the treatment goal for most patients with chronic stable angina should be complete, or near complete, elimination of the pain. Results of this survey suggest that in many instances treatment for angina-related symptoms could be optimized. Pharmacists are in an ideal position to identify and recommend therapeutic strategies for patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".