Results of low intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy in patients with refractory angina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Low intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy has proven useful in the treatment of patients with refractory angina pectoris. Objective: To assess the results of this type of therapy in patients with refractory angina to drug treatment. Method: A quasi-experimental study was carried out in 30 patients with refractory angina pectoris to treatment, selected in a non-probabilistic way, taking into account the following inclusion criteria. All patients were applied low intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the Cardiocentro Ernesto Guevara of Santa Clara, in the period from January to December 2017. Epidemiological, clinical and echocardiographic variables were analyzed at the beginning of the treatment and six months after it was completed. Results: The results obtained demonstrated an improvement of the functional class (FC) of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS). Previous to treatment, 76.7% of patients had a FC III and 23.3% a FC IV, and after six months of completed therapy, 73.3% improved to FC II and only 26.7 % remained in FC III. There was also an improvement with respect to echocardiographic parameters such as regional motility and left ventricular ejection fraction, which, in men, of an average at the start of therapy of 37.81% it reached 44.14% at six months of completed; and in women, of an average of 37.11% initially, it reached 47.22 % six months later. Conclusions: The treatment with shock waves represents a therapeutic alternative for patients with refractory angina.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".