Peer-to-Peer content search supported by a distributed index in a publication/search model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A challenge of modern cardiovascular medicine is to find new, effective treatments for patients with refractory angina pectoris (RAP), a clinical condition characterized by severe angina despite optimal medical therapy and "no option" for a surgical or percutaneous revascularization. Although the relevant advance of both pharmaceutical and interventional treatments for patients affected by symptomatic coronary artery disease has greatly contributed to prolong survival, the increasing number of patients experimenting persistent and invalidating angina symptoms, highlights that quality of life of these patients has not been equally improved. Clinical limitations of the efficiency of conventional and relatively new approaches justify the search for new therapeutic options. In this review, we will focus on the epidemiology of RAP, and we will provide a brief update on the different options actually available to these patients with particular interest to an innovative device that narrow the coronary sinus: the Reducer system (Neovasc Inc., Richmond B.C., Canada). The efforts of present and future clinical studies will ultimately answer the question of whether this intriguing therapy is a suitable strategy for treatment of patients with RAP.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".