MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971102449 · doi:10.2147/vhrm.s209003

<p>PROspective evaluation of coronary FLOW reserve and molecular biomarkers in patients with established coronary artery disease the PROFLOW-trial: cross-sectional evaluation of coronary flow reserve</p>

2019· article· en· W2971102449 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVascular Health and Risk Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary flow reserveCardiologyInternal medicineMaceCoronary artery diseaseMyocardial infarctionFractional flow reserveAngioplastyProspective cohort studyAnginaCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyPercutaneous coronary interventionCoronary angiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Survivors of myocardial infarction (MI) are at high risk of new major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Coronary flow reserve (CFR) is a strong and independent predictor of MACE. Understanding the prevalence of impaired CFR in this patient group and identifying risk markers for impaired CFR are important steps in the development of personalized and targeted treatment for high-risk individuals with prior MI. METHODS: PROFLOW is a prospective, exploratory, cross-sectional open study. We used information from the SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry) to identify high-risk patients with a history of type-1 MI. We measured CFR non-invasively in a left anterior descending artery (LAD) using transthoracic Doppler echocardiography. Coronary flow velocity was measured at rest and at maximal flow after induction of hyperemia by intravenous infusion of adenosine (140 μg/kg/min). Independent predictors of CFR were assessed with multiple linear regression. RESULTS: We included 619 patients. The median age was 69 (IQR 65-73), and 114 (18.4%) were women. Almost one-half of the patients, 285 (46.0%) had the multi-vessel disease, and 147 (23.7%) were incompletely revascularized. The majority were on optimal standard treatment eg ASA (93.1%), statins (90.0%), ACEI/ARB (82.6%) and beta-blockers (80.8%). The majority, 547 (88.4%) had no angina pectoris, and 572 (92.2%) were in NYHA class I. Evaluation of CFR was possible in 611 (98.7%) patients. Mean CFR was 2.74 (±0.79 (mean ± SD)). A substantial number of patients (39.7%) had CFR ≤2.5. In a multiple linear regression model age, dyslipidemia, smoking, hypertension, body mass index, incomplete revascularization, and treatment with angiotensin receptor blockers were independent predictors of CFR. CONCLUSION: In this high-risk group of patients with prior MI, the prevalence of impaired CFR was high. Further risk stratification with CFR in addition to traditional cardiovascular risk factors may improve predictive accuracy for future MACE in this patient population.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it