Cardiopulmonary exercise test in patients with refractory angina: functional and ischemic evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Refractory angina (RA) is a chronic condition clinically characterized by low effort tolerance; therefore, physical stress testing is not usually requested for these patients. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is considered a gold standard examination for functional capacity evaluation, even in submaximal tests, and it has gained great prominence in detecting ischemia. The authors aimed to determine cardiorespiratory capacity by using the oxygen consumption efficiency slope (OUES) in patients with refractory angina. The authors also studied the O2 pulse response by CPET and the association of ischemic changes with contractile modifications by exercise stress echocardiography (ESE). Thirty-one patients of both sexes, aged 45 to 75 years, with symptomatic (Canadian Cardiovascular Society class II to IV) angina who underwent CPET on a treadmill and exercise stress echocardiography on a lower limb cycle ergometer were studied. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03218891. The patients had low cardiorespiratory capacity (OUES of 1.74 ± 0.4 L/min; 63.9±14.7% of predicted), and 77% of patients had a flattening or drop in O2 pulse response. There was a direct association between Heart Rate (HR) at the onset of myocardial ischemia detected by ESE and HR at the onset of flattening or drop in oxygen pulse response detected by CPET (R = 0.48; p = 0.019). Patients with refractory angina demonstrate low cardiorespiratory capacity. CPET shows good sensitivity for detecting abnormal cardiovascular response in these patients with a significant relationship between flattening O2 pulse response during CEPT and contractile alterations detected by exercise stress echocardiography.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".