Comparison of Mean Platelet Volume in Acute Myocardial Infarction vs. Normal Coronary Angiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering the importance of cardiovascular disease and the role that platelets have in thrombosis formation in the coronary arteries, this study was done in order to assess platelet-related indices in patients who suffered acute myocardial infarction (MI) and compare them with those who had normal coronary angiography results.In this descriptive-analytical study, 200 patients who were admitted to our university hospital due to chest pain were included. The patients were divided into five groups including ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), non-STEMI, unstable angina (UA), stable angina (SA), and healthy subjects (as control group). Platelet-related indices including platelet count as well asmean platelet volume (MPV) was determined. For this purpose, blood samples were taken from the patients upon admission and platelet count and volume were measured within three hours of admission.There was no statistically significant difference regarding MPV between the study groups (P> 0.05). MPV did not have any role in diagnosing various types of coronary artery disease (CAD).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".