The feasibility of single percutaneous revascularisation and stenting to the patients with serious coronary heart disease and renal arterial stenosis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Investigated the feasibility of single palliative percutaneous revascularisation(PTRA)and stenting to the patients with serious coronary heart disease and renal arterial stenosis. Methods 17 patients(male 14, female 3) were studied. The mean age of patients was (67.5 ±1.3) years(ranged from 58 to 77 years). All patients had serious coronary heart disease and renal arterial stenosis, unwillingly or unfittly to undertake percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft therapy. All the cases underwent the therapy of PTRA and stenting, and a 12～18 months average (14.7±3.1) months follow-up. The investigative data include the times of angina pectoris, LVEF in transthoracic echocardiography(TTE) and the questions in SF-36 Health Survey. Results Within the follow-up, the times of angina pectoris every week reduced from (11.0±1.6) to (4.8±0.9)次 (P0.01 ). The cardiac function was improved from class 3 to class 2 in 12 cases and had no changed in 5 patients. The left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF) was developed from (37.6±6.7)% to (45.3±9.1)%(P0.01); The SF-36 scores were significantly improved from (65.3±4.5) to (97.3±12.8) 分(P0.01 ). There were significantly improved in every part on SF-36 (General scores. Health and daily activity, Self-feeling, General health).Conclusions It is feasible that single palliative PTRA and stenting to the patients with serious coronary heart disease and renal arterial stenosis, if the patient do not or can not receive the CABG.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".