Traditional and Alternative Therapies for Refractory Angina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Refractory angina (RFA) is an unfavourable condition that is characterized with persistent angina due to reversible myocardial ischemia in patients with coronary artery disease that remains uncontrollable despite an optimal combination of pharmacological agents and revascularization. Despite significant advances in revascularization techniques and agents used in pharmacological therapy, there is still a significant population suffering from RFA and the global prevalence is even increasing. Anti- anginal treatment and secondary risk-factor modification are the traditional approaches for this group of patients. Furthermore, now there is still a large number of alternative treatment options. In order to review traditional and alternative treatment strategies in patients with RFA, we searched Pubmed for articles in English using the search terms "pharmacological therapy, refractory angina", "alternative therapy, refractory angina" between inception to June 2016. We also went through separately for each alternative treatment modality on Pubmed. To identify further articles, we handsearched related citations in review articles and commentaries. We also included data from the European Society of Cardiology (2013), and the Canadian Society of Cardiology/ Canadian Pain Society (2012) guidelines. Data show that besides traditional pharmacological agents, such as nitrates, beta- blockers or calcium channel blockers, novel antiischemic drugs and if symptoms persist, several non- invasive and/ or invasive alternative strategies may be considered. Impact of some pharmacological agents, such as rho- kinase inhibitors, and novel alternative treatment modalities, such as coronary sinus reducers, stem cell therapy, gene and protein therapy, on outcomes are still under investigation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".