Stress echocardiography in the evaluation of women presenting with chest pain syndrome: a randomized, prospective comparison with electrocardiographic stress testing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative value of three stress testing modalities for establishing the presence of coronary artery disease in women presenting with chest pain. BACKGROUND: Echocardiographic testing modalities have the potential to be more effective than standard electrocardiographic stress testing (EST), but they require prospective evaluation. METHODS: Patients with no cardiac history and at least two cardiac risk factors were randomly assigned to one of three initial diagnostic strategies: treadmill EST (n=54), treadmill echocardiographic stress testing (ExE) (n=57) or dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) (n=47). Patients were followed prospectively for 28.1+/-14.2 months. The nature of the presenting chest pain was established clinically. RESULTS: Twelve patients (7.6%) were determined to have had cardiac chest pain, 128 patients (81.0%) received a diagnosis of noncardiac chest pain and 18 patients (11.4%) had indeterminate results. The echocardiographic testing modalities were associated with fewer indeterminate results than was EST (two of 104 [1.9%] versus 13 of 54 [24.1%]). All modalities were highly effective in excluding cardiac chest pain, with negative predictive values of 91.3%, 83.7% and 88.4%, respectively, for EST, DSE and ExE. The proportion of cases for which both definitive and accurate results were provided was 92.9% for DSE, 82.4% for ExE and 67.3% for EST. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the favourable prognosis of women presenting with chest pain syndrome and the reliability of negative results obtained with any of the testing modalities. Echocardiographic testing modalities are more likely than EST to provide both definitive and accurate results and would, therefore, seem to be the superior primary noninvasive testing modality in this patient population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".