The parallel tales of microvascular angina and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a paradigm shift
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increasing number of studies clearly demonstrate that coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) plays a pivotal role in several cardiovascular diseases.1 In particular, emerging evidence suggests that CMD is the main contributor to myocardial ischaemia in a large subset of patients with chronic stable angina. Indeed, non-obstructive coronary atherosclerosis is observed in up to 50% of patients with angina and positive stress test results undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography.2 Thus, the prevalence of microvascular angina (MVA) is higher than previously thought and associated with worse clinical outcomes than those observed in asymptomatic subjects with similar risk factor burden.3 The diagnosis of MVA is based on the following criteria: (i) symptoms of myocardial ischaemia; (ii) absence of obstructive epicardial coronary artery disease; (iii) evidence of myocardial ischaemia on non-invasive stress testing; and (iv) evidence of impaired coronary microvascular function. The clinical relevance of MVA has historically been overlooked since the diagnostic tools required for the evaluation of the coronary microcirculation are infrequently utilized. A parallel ‘tale’ could be proposed for heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Indeed, HFpEF is observed in about 50% of patients presenting with HF symptoms and is characterized by the absence of a relevant reduction of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).4 As with MVA, patients with HFpEF have poorer clinical outcomes compared with asymptomatic subjects exhibiting a similar burden of risk factors. The diagnosis of HFpEF is based on the following: (i) symptoms with or without signs of HF; (ii) normal or only mildy reduced LVEF; (iii) elevated levels of natriuretic peptides; (iv) relevant structural heart disease (i.e. left ventricular hypertrophy, left atrial enlargement) and/or diastolic dysfunction. In both MVA and HFpEF, no therapeutic intervention has hitherto been proven to improve patient outcome; similarly, symptomatic treatment is largely empirical. A key shared characteristic …
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it