MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225417096 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2022.04.009

A Practical Approach to Invasive Testing in Ischemia With No Obstructive Coronary Arteries (INOCA)

2022· review· en· W4225417096 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan HealthUniversity of ManitobaSouthlake Regional Health CenterNOSM UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaSaskatchewan Health AuthorityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseCoronary angiographyCardiologyAnginaInternal medicineCoronary arteriesArteryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Up to 65% of women and approximately 30% of men have ischemia with no obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD; commonly known as INOCA) on invasive coronary angiography performed for stable angina. INOCA can be due to coronary microvascular dysfunction or coronary vasospasm. Despite the absence of obstructive CAD, those with INOCA have an increased risk of all-cause mortality and adverse outcomes, including recurrent angina and cardiovascular events. These patients often undergo repeat testing, including cardiac catheterization, resulting in lifetime healthcare costs that rival those for obstructive CAD. Patients with INOCA often remain undiagnosed and untreated. This review discusses the symptoms and prognosis of INOCA, offers a systematic approach to the diagnostic evaluation of these patients, and summarizes therapeutic management, including tailored therapy according to underlying pathophysiological mechanisms.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.253 · 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