Left ventricular function recovery after revascularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In 2013, heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) was introduced as a new heart failure phenotype. This review provides an overview of HFrecEF and the comparative effects of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. RECENT FINDINGS: There has been emerging data indicating that LV functional recovery is possible and HFrecEF is associated with improved survival and better quality of life. CABG may be associated with larger improvement in LVEF when compared with PCI. However, there is significant paucity of studies, which directly compare the impact of PCI and CABG on LVEF recovery in the setting of ischemic cardiomyopathy. SUMMARY: LVEF recovery is emerging as an important outcome with demonstrated survival and quality-of-life benefits. Future randomized clinical trials comparing the impact of contemporary PCI and CABG on LVEF recovery are needed in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".