The Use of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire in Patients Who Underwent Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina Pectoris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) is a self-administered questionnaire used in cardiac patients to quantify angina based on five scales: physical limitation scale, anginal stability scale, anginal frequency scale, treatment satisfaction scale, and the disease perception scale. Here we report the use of the SAQ to assess angina symptoms in 18 patients who underwent spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for refractory angina pectoris (RAP) at the Mayo Clinic. METHODS: Electronic health records were searched to find patients who underwent SCS for the treatment of RAP at a single institution from 2003 to 2018. Eligible patients were asked to participate in a phone survey that included the SAQ. RESULTS: Out of 13 patients who still had their implant, six (46%) had minimal physical limitations. Ten patients (76.9%) had favorable anginal frequency scores, defined as minimal or mild. Out of the five patients who had their device removed, one (20%) had minimal physical limitations and three (60%) had favorable anginal frequency scores. There was a high treatment satisfaction score for both those with their implant in place and those with the device removed. CONCLUSION: The SAQ is useful as a comprehensive measure specific to patients with RAP assessing function, pain, and satisfaction. The utilization of this tool pre- and post-operatively may provide additional information to analyze the effectiveness of SCS for RAP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".