Effectiveness and safety of anti-ischemic trimetazidine in patients with stable angina pectoris and Type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim & methods: This 6-month prospective, observational, noninterventional, open-label clinical study assessed the effectiveness/safety of trimetazidine in 737 patients with stable angina pectoris and Type 2 diabetes mellitus (OGYI/51534-1/2014). RESULTS: Trimetazidine-based therapy was effective in stable coronary artery disease, with significant improvements from baseline (p < 0.05) in: number of angina attacks/week (2.9 ± 2.4 vs 1.1 ± 1.6), angina severity (Canadian Cardiovascular Society Classification 1.9 ± 0.8 vs 1.2 ± 0.8), exercise capacity (metabolic equivalents 6.1 ± 1.7 vs 6.5 ± 1.7), and exercise-induced myocardial ischemia (min 5.5 ± 2.5 vs 6.5 ± 2.6). DISCUSSION: Trimetazidine treatment significantly (p < 0.05) improved glucose metabolism, lowered HbA1c (7.1 ± 1.1% vs 6.6 ± 1.0%), glucose levels (7.7 ± 2.1 mmol/l vs 6.9 ± 1.6 mmol/l) and decreased arterial stiffness (pulse wave velocity 11.2 ± 2.1 m/s vs 10.4 ± 2.2 m/s). In most patients, the tolerability of trimetazidine was rated as excellent to good, with a low incidence of adverse events.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".