Coronary Artery Disease in Adults Undergoing Percutaneous Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Following Cryptogenic Stroke.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A patent foramen ovale (PFO) is found in nearly half of patients with cryptogenic stroke. Little guidance on the use or necessity of coronary angiography at the time of percutaneous PFO closure exists. We aimed to characterize the presence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing PFO closure following a cryptogenic stroke. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent concurrent percutaneous PFO closure and coronary angiography was performed. Patients were ≥40 years of age and had a preceding diagnosis of cryptogenic stroke with no known CAD. Visual analysis of coronary angiograms was performed. RESULTS: Of 180 patients, 8 (4%) had severe CAD, 15 (8%) had moderate CAD, 32 (18%) had mild CAD, and 12 (7%) had luminal irregularities. Of those with moderate-to-severe CAD, 9 (5%) had proximal disease and 9 (5%) had multivessel disease. Of those with moderate-to-severe CAD, 8 (35%) underwent further risk stratification with stress testing, 4 (17%) were medically managed, and 1 (4%) underwent concurrent angioplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Coronary angiography identified a low prevalence of CAD in patients with cryptogenic stroke undergoing PFO closure, suggesting that coronary angiography is not routinely indicated in patients undergoing PFO closure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".