MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014709676 · doi:10.5539/jmbr.v10n1p24

Frequency of Ectasia among Patients with Coronary Atherosclerosis by Angiography Dual Source & 64 CT SLICE Evaluatin

2020· article· en· W3014709676 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marzie Motevalli, Mohammad Jalali, Raheleh Najarian, Fahimeh Rahnama, Shahrooz Yazdani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Molecular Biology Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEctasiaMedicineStenosisCardiologyInternal medicineShahidCoronary artery ectasiaAngiographyCoronary angiographyRadiologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The aim of this study is Frequency of ectasia among patients with coronary atherosclerosis. Materials and Methods: This is a cross-sectional study, which retrospectively had evaluated a percentage of total frequency ectasia among patients with coronary atherosclerosis by angiography Dual a source & 64 CT SLICE between 2007-20012 in Imag Center of Imam Khomeini Hospital and shahid Rajai Hospital. Results: Totally 2770 patients were enrolled in the study. The frequency of ectasia among all patients was 42 [1.5%]. The frequency of stenosis in patients with LAD ectasia was 36.8% [7 out of 19] while the frequency of LAD stenosis in other patients was 59.5% [1637 out of 2751] [P=0.045]. Distribution of stenosis in ecstatic LCx and RCA was not statistically different with patients without non ecstatic LCx and RCA. [P=0.47 and 0.45 respectively]. In patients with ectasia, the frequency of stenosis was 71.4 while it was 64.4% in patients without ectasia [P=0.35]. Discussion: Furthermore, detection and investigation of Ectasia in patients with stenosis will lead to more accurate determination of the treatment plan and the purpose of this study is finging a new assess prevalence of morphological changes Ectasia by CT angiography and coronary sclerosing Prevalence this group of 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Molecular Biology ResearchSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207