MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048243310 · doi:10.14740/cr1125

The Role of Aortic Stiffness Parameters in Evaluating Myocardial Ischemia

2020· article· ml· W3048243310 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Merve Kumrular, Pelin Karaca Özer, Ali Elitok

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageml
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicinePulse pressureCoronary artery diseaseBlood pressureArterial stiffnessDiastolePulse wave velocity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Arterial stiffness is a process resulting in deterioration of hemodynamic function of the aorta, a decrease in its compliance and elasticity, caused by the proportional change of components of the extracellular matrix. Although many researches have been done to determine the etiologies of myocardial ischemia in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease, none of them has investigated the relation between the parameters of aortic stiffness and the myocardial ischemia documented by the exercise stress test. The present cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the difference of aortic stiffness parameters between the groups separated by exercise stress test result as positive and negative ischemic findings in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease. METHODS: The present study included 79 patients who were admitted to Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Department of Cardiology with complaint of chest pain. Forty patients (21 women and 19 men) have ischemic findings on the exercise electrocardiography (ECG) test and 39 patients (20 women and 19 men) have normal exercise ECG results. The patients who have positive exercise ECG findings underwent coronary angiography and all the patients had non-obstructive coronary artery disease. Demographic features (age, sex and comorbidities) were statistically similar between the groups. Aortic stiffness measurements (pulse wave velocity, pulse pressure, aortic augmented pressure, augmentation index, systolic pressure-time index, diastolic pressure-time index and subendocardial viability ratio) were done with tonometric methods. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the aortic stiffness parameters. Systolic blood pressure (P = 0.33), diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.24), pulse pressure (P = 0.60), systolic pressure-time index (P = 0.10), diastolic pressure-time index (P = 0.91), subendocardial viability ratio (P = 0.19), aortic augmented pressure (P = 0.87), augmentation index (P = 0.58) and pulse wave velocity (P = 0.56) were detected between the two groups. Biochemical parameters were found similar between the two groups. Only low-density lipoprotein levels were slightly higher in patients with negative exercise stress test result (139 vs. 123 mg/dL, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: There is no finding supporting that the aortic stiffness identifies the patients with non-obstructive coronary artery disease but with signs of myocardial ischemia and further investigation of other causes of myocardial ischemia is required.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207