MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026421215 · doi:10.1186/s12933-020-01033-4

Impact of coronary collateralization on long-term clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetic patients after successful recanalization of chronic total occlusion

2020· article· en· W3026421215 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhen Yang, Ying Shen, Yang Dai, Xiao Qun Wang, Jian Hu, Feng Ding, Ruiyan Zhang, Lin Lu, Wei Feng Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiovascular Diabetology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghai Municipal Education CommissionSchool of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong UniversityInnovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineCollateralizationInternal medicineCardiologyPercutaneous coronary interventionConventional PCIEjection fractionDiabetes mellitusType 2 Diabetes MellitusRevascularizationAnginaMyocardial infarctionCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyProportional hazards modelHeart failureEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To assess the prognostic role of coronary collaterals in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusion (CTO). METHODS: Coronary collateralization was graded according to Rentrop scoring system in 198 type 2 diabetic patients and 335 non-diabetics with stable angina undergoing PCI for at least one CTO lesion. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was determined and major adverse cardio-cerebral events (MACCE) were recorded during follow-up. RESULTS: Poor collateralization was more common in patients with T2DM than in non-diabetics (40% vs 29%, p = 0.008). At 13.5 ± 4.1 months, the rate of composite MACCE (17.3% vs 27.6%, p = 0.034) and repeat revascularization (15.2% vs 25.5%, p = 0.026) was lower and the increase in LVEF (3.10% vs 1.80%, p = 0.024) was greater in patients with good collaterals than in those with poor collaterals for non-diabetic group. The associations were in the same direction for T2DM group (35% vs 44%; 30% vs 36%; 2.14% vs 1.65%, respectively) with a higher all-cause mortality in diabetic patients with poor collaterals (p = 0.034). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that coronary collateralization was an independent factor for time to MACCE (HR 2.155,95% CI 1.290-3.599, p = 0.003) and repeat revascularization (HR 2.326, 95% CI 1.357-3.986, p = 0.002) in non-diabetic patients, but did not enter the model in those with T2DM. CONCLUSIONS: T2DM is associated with reduced coronary collateralization. The effects of the status of coronary collateralization on long-term clinical outcomes and left ventricular function appear to be similar in size in type 2 diabetic patients and non-diabetics after successful recanalization of CTO.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiovascular DiabetologySame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207