Invasive microvascular coronary circulation assessment in patients with coronary artery aneurysmal disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESEARCH LETTER CMD assessment in patients with CAAD 1 no significant coronary artery stenosis (stenosis <40% of the vessel diameter or 40%-60% of the vessel diameter assessed as insignificant in functional testing, such as fractional flow reserve [FFR >0.8]), and who met none of the study exclusion criteria.The patients were referred for coronary angiography following the European Society of Cardiology recommendations for chronic coronary syndromes 8 after assessment of the clinical probability of ischemic heart disease.Magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging revealed ischemia in 2 patients in the CAAD group and 12 patients in the INOCA group.In addition, 3 patients in the INOCA group were referred for invasive evaluation due to positive results of an exercise stress test.The remaining patients were referred for coronary angiography without noninvasive diagnostics due to severe angina (Canadian Cardiovascular Society class III) and ischemic changes on resting 12 -lead electrocardiography.All the patients were evaluated for the presence of CMD, including coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) assessment, as part of the diagnosis of INOCA.CMD was diagnosed when IMR was equal to or greater than 25 and / or CFR was below 2.0.Overall, 5 consecutive patients with CAAD confirmed on coronary angiography (CAAD group) and 25 consecutive patients without CAAD (non -CAAD group) were included in the analysis.CAAD was defined as segmental, single, or, less commonly, multiple dilations of the vessel lumen with a diameter 1.5 times the diameter of the patient's widest coronary artery.The study exclusion criteria were as follows: presence of an acute inflammatory condition (high -sensitivity C -reactive protein level >10 mg/l), active neoplastic disease, systemic connective tissue diseases, treatment with
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".