Angina and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: facing the perfect storm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and ischaemic heart disease (IHD) is challenging both in terms of prognosis and of pharmacological treatment. An 83-year-old Caucasian male patient has chronic kidney disease, COPD, previous myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft with left internal mammary artery (LIMA) on left anterior descending (LAD), saphenous vein graft (SVG) on obtuse marginal (OM)1 and on right coronary artery, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on LAD (occlusion of LIMA) and on SVG for OM1 (SVG critical stenosis). Recently, the patient complained worsening angina [Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) III] and had residual ischaemia in the anterior wall after an unsuccessful attempt of PCI was performed on LAD for in-stent occlusion due to restenosis. Bisoprolol uptitration failed due to worsening of pulmonary function at spirometry. For this reason, ivabradine 5 mg b.i.d. was added to bisoprolol. Afterwards, the patient referred amelioration of symptoms and he is actually in CCS Class I. The control spirometry showed moderate obstruction comparable to his chronic situation. Patients with IHD and COPD often do not receive β-blockers due to the fear of adverse effects. However, cardioselective β-blockers do not worsen pulmonary function while they reduce mortality in COPD patients. In this setting, ivabradine could be extremely helpful in order to control symptoms since it is effective in patients with asthma and COPD, with no alteration in respiratory function or symptoms and improves exercise capacity and functional class in COPD patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".