EVALUATION OF MYOCARDIAL REVASCULARIZATION IN STABLE CORONARY HEART DISEASE PATIENTS AND FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH INVASIVE STRATEGY CHOICE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim . To investigate on clinical recommendations on revasculariztion in stable coronary heart disease patients, and to reveal factors associated with the choice of invasive strategy. Material and methods . The analysis of 1522 stable coronary heart disease patients was performed, mean age 53,0±8,5 y.o., 76,15% males, underwent in 2012-15 coronary arteriography. Patients were selected to 2 groups: those underwent myocardial revascularization (n=591; 38,8% of total), and patients only on drug treatment (n=931; 61,2% of total). The indications for revascularization were formulated according to European Society of Cardiology Guidelines 2014. For the factors selection that are associated with invasive strategy choice, a discriminant model was built-up. Factor were ranged by the grade of influence and relation sign. Results . Patients from surgery group had indications for revascularization more oftenly: 83,1% vs 76,8% (p<0,001). Most influencing factors were significant stenosis of some coronary arteries, typical angina, chronic heart failure functional class. Also, the presence of typical angina pain and worsening of heart failure were associated with refusal from the intervention, and hemodynamically significant stenosis was associated with revascularization. Conclusion . The mismatch was found, of real clinical situation and actual clinical guidelines. Most patients included into the study and having indications for myocardial revascularization were not operated. At the same time some operations are done not strictly following indications. In selection of candidates for coronary intervention there is tendency for the surgery in post myocardial infarction patients and with significant stenosis of coronary arteries regardless symptoms.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".