[Immediate and mid-term results following coronary stent implantation in diabetic patients].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We analyzed the clinical and angiographic outcome, including follow-up, in diabetic, patients treated with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and stenting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between January 1995 and December 1999, 770 patients were treated with PTCA, 137 of them with diabetes (DM), 17.7% received 160 stents, average 1.16 stent/patient. Mean age was 58.70 +/- 8.44 years (range 35 to 80 years) and there were 92 men and 45 women. According to the clinical presentation, there were 54% with severe angina based on criteria from the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS). Sixty two percent of patients had prior myocardial infarction and 68% had multivessel disease. Mean vascular obstruction was 90 +/- 6.3% and the ejection fraction was 45.3 +/- 8.7%. RESULTS: The immediate angiographic success was 94.4% in patients with DM. There were complications in 8.4% (acute myocardial infarction, and thrombosis). The average follow-up was 10 mouths (range 6 to 36) in 94% of the cases. The mortality was 4.3%. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that PTCA and stenting in patients with DM is a successful procedure, with few clinical and angiographics complications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".