Typical angina is associated with greater coronary endothelial dysfunction but not abnormal vasodilatory reserve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Typical angina (TA) is defined as substernal chest pain precipitated by physical exertion or emotional stress and relieved with rest or nitroglycerin. Women and elderly patients are usually have atypical symptoms both at rest and during stress, often in the setting of nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). HYPOTHESIS: To further understand this, we performed subgroup analysis comparing subjects who presented with TA vs nontypical angina (NTA) using baseline data of patients with nonobstructive CAD and coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) enrolled in a clinical trial. METHODS: 155 subjects from the RWISE study were divided into 2 groups based on angina characteristics: TA (defined as above) and NTA (angina that does not meet criteria for TA). Coronary reactivity testing (responses to adenosine, acetylcholine, and nitroglycerin), cardiac magnetic resonance-determined myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPRI), baseline Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), and Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) scores were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean age was 55 ± 10 years; Overall, 30% of subjects had TA. Baseline shortness of breath, invasively assessed acetylcholine-mediated coronary endothelial function, and SAQ score were worse in the TA group (all P < 0.05), whereas adenosine-mediated coronary flow reserve, MPRI, and DASI score were similar to the NTA group. CONCLUSIONS: Among subjects with CMD and no obstructive CAD, those with TA had more angina pectoris, shortness of breath, and worse quality of life, as well as more severe coronary endothelial dysfunction. Typical angina in the setting of CMD is associated with worse symptom burden and coronary endothelial dysfunction. These results indicate that TA CMD subjects represent a relatively new CAD phenotype for future study and treatment trials.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".