LABORATORY PREDICTORS OF CARDIOVASCULAR RISK IN PATIENTS WITH UNSTABLE ANGINA AND A CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT STRATEGY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To identify independent laboratory predictors of cardiovascular risk in patients with unstable angina (UA) with arterial hypertension (AH) with a conservative treatment strategy. Design and method: Design and methods: 102 patients with UA, low GRACE risk and conservative treatment strategy were examined. Group 1 comprised 63 (61.7%) patients with AH (61.2 ± 6.5 years), group 2 included 39 (38.3%) patients without AH (63.6 ± 5.4 years). All patients initially determined troponin I level, then at discharge, after 6 and 12 months of follow-up, a complete blood count was performed with an assessment of platelet volume (MPV), levels of C-reactive protein, myeloperoxidase (MPO), BNP and coagulation hemostasis which was assessed with fibrinogen level, von Willebrand factor (WF), D-dimers. Results: During 12 months of follow-up, cardiovascular complications developed in 12 patients of 1G (19%) and 9 patients (23%) of 2G. Q- myocardial infarction developed in 3 individuals (4.8%) 1G and 2 (5.1%) patients from 2G. 2 patients of 1G (3.2%) and 3 individuals from 2G (7.7%) underwent urgent CABG; 7 patients 1G (11%) and 4 (10.3%) patients 2G underwent coronary artery stenting. There were no cases of mortality. Baseline CRP, BNP in both groups did not differ significantly. Independent laboratory predictors of the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events (MI, recurrent angina) during 1 year after UA with AH are: baseline platelet volume MPV more 9.6fl (sensitivity - 81%, specificity - 82%), initial WF level more 145% (sensitivity – 75%, specificity - 92.3%), initial level of MPO more 320 pmol / l (sensitivity - 82%, specificity - 91%). Independent predictors of the risk of cardiovascular complications after UA without AH for a year with a conservative treatment strategy are: baseline CRP more 6.8 g / l (sensitivity 82%, specificity - 89.5%) and BNP more 139 pg /ml (sensitivity - 86%, specificity - 96%). Conclusions: Laboratory predictors of cardiovascular risk in patients with UA and AH and a conservative treatment strategy are baseline levels of WF, MPO, MPV; in patients with UA without AH - CRP and BNP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".