[Myocardial revascularization versus percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in the treatment of ischemic cardiopathy].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Ischemic heart disease affects a high number of patients, and may be treated by surgery or coronary angioplasty. The objective of this study is to compare the middle term results of both procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between January and March of 1999, 59 patients with a mean age of 65 years old ranging 46 to 79, were treated with myocardial revascularization (group I) and 57 patients with a mean age of 59 years old ranging 33 to 88 were submitted to coronary angioplasty (group II). It was evaluated and compared risk factors, morbidity, mortality, evolution in two years after the procedures, presence of symptoms, freedom of events. RESULTS: In group I a higher number of diabetic patients was found. The 89.8% of patients was asymptomatic two years after the procedure in group I against 52.6% in group II (p = 0.03). One patient in group I presented angina six months after the procedure and 27 patients in group II (47.3%), presented angina between the first seven months after the procedure (p = 0.034). Morbidity affects in special to diabetic patients and was higher in group I. Mortality was similar in both groups: 6.7% for group I and 6% in group II. The length of stay in hospital was lower in group II (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: In a middle time, coronary artery bypass grafting offers better results related to freedom of angina and better quality of life.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".