Different tactics of single-stent endovascular treatment among coronary heart disease patients with coronary artery bifurcation lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. To analyze the results of different tactics of single-stent endovascular treatment among patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and coronary artery bifurcation lesions (CABL). Material and methods. The study included 135 CHD patients with CABL. All participants were divided into 2 groups: Group I (n=77; 58,3 %) consisted of patients who underwent coronary artery (CA) main branch (MB) stenting and subsequent kissing balloon angioplasty of a CA side branch (SB). Group II (n=55) included patients with “genuine” CABL, who underwent only MB stenting with SB protection, but without SB balloon angioplasty. Results. In all 132 CABL patients, drug-eluting stents were successfully implanted, with technical effectiveness of 100 % and in-hospital survival of 100 %. Clinical outcomes were similar in both groups, with no major cardiovascular events registered. At the same time, such an important angiographic index as SB diameter was significantly higher in Group I, compared to Group II. At later stages, Group II patients required SB angioplasty and demonstrated habitual angina symptoms, ischemic electrocardiographic (ECG) changes, and slow SB blood flow (TIMI grade Conclusion. MB stenting of CA bifurcation without SB kissing balloon angioplasty cannot be recommended to all CABL patients. Development of habitual angina symptoms, ischemic ECG changes, and slow SB blood flow (TIMI grade
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".