MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411214813 · doi:10.3909/ricm10s10002

Chronic Angina: Definition, Prevalence, and Implications for Quality of Life

2009· review· en· W2411214813 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamin M. Scirica

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDaiichi Sankyo EuropeAstraZenecaEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineAnginaRevascularizationCardiologyInternal medicineCoronary artery diseasePercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarctionQuality of life (healthcare)Canadian Cardiovascular SocietyPercutaneousMedical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic angina is a prevalent manifestation of cardiovascular disease and is most commonly due to insufficient oxygen supply from fixed epicardial lesions in the coronary arteries. In addition to increasing the risk of cardiovascular death and recurrent myocardial infarction, chronic angina has a significant impact on functional capacity and quality of life. All patients with cardiovascular disease should be closely questioned to determine the functional and symptomatic limitations attributable to ischemic symptoms. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society Classification of Angina is the easiest metric to use; however, more sensitive measures such as the Seattle Angina Questionnaire offer a better overall assessment of angina symptoms and quality of life and can be used to compare the efficacy of different treatments. Treatment strategies that begin with either immediate revascularization or optimal medical therapy with antianginal agents significantly improve angina frequency and quality of life. Initial revascularization, especially with coronary artery bypass grafting, appears to offer more rapid relief of angina compared with percutaneous coronary intervention or medical therapy in the first months after initial revascularization. After a year of follow-up, though, much of the treatment differences are lost and all strategies (surgical/percutaneous revascularization or medical therapy) result in a significant improvement of angina symptoms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207