Effectiveness of Alcohol Septal Ablation in Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy With Versus Without Extreme Septal Hypertrophy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Data on the effectiveness of alcohol septal ablation (ASA) in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and extreme septal hypertrophy (ESH) are lacking. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of ASA in patients with vs without ESH. METHODS: Clinical profiles of 17 patients with ESH and 256 patients without ESH were compared. RESULTS: Baseline pressure gradient and limiting symptoms were comparable between patients with and without ESH. At median 1.1 years of follow-up after ASA, pressure gradient was 48.5 ± 40.4 mm Hg in the ESH group and 40.9 ± 35.2 mm Hg in the non-ESH (N-ESH) group (P=.33). Patients with New York Heart Association class III/IV represented 5.9% of the ESH group and 16.9% of the N-ESH group (P=.39). Patients with Canadian Cardiovascular Society class III/IV represented 5.9% of the ESH group and 10.2% of the N-ESH group (P=.87). CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of ASA seems comparable between patients with and without ESH.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".