MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386307334 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2023.1217731

The relationships between acetylcholine-induced chest pain, objective measures of coronary vascular function and symptom status

2023· article· en· W4386307334 on OpenAlexaff
Steven E.S. Miner, Mary C. McCarthy, Chris I. Ardern, Chris G. R. Perry, Olga Toleva, Lynne E. Nield, Cedric Manlhiot, Warren J. Cantor

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSouthlake Regional Health CenterYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersAbbott Vascular
KeywordsMedicineAcetylcholineChest painAnginaAdenosineCardiologyInternal medicineAnesthesiaCoronary artery diseaseEndothelial dysfunctionVasodilationMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Acetylcholine-induced chest pain is routinely measured during the assessment of microvascular function. Aims The aim was to determine the relationships between acetylcholine-induced chest pain and both symptom burden and objective measures of vascular function. Methods In patients with angina but no obstructive coronary artery disease, invasive studies determined the presence or absence of chest pain during both acetylcholine and adenosine infusion. Thermodilution-derived coronary blood flow (CBF) and index of microvascular resistance (IMR) was determined at rest and during both acetylcholine and adenosine infusion. Patients with epicardial spasm (>90%) were excluded; vasoconstriction between 20% and 90% was considered endothelial dysfunction. Results Eighty-seven patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these 52 patients (60%) experienced chest pain during acetylcholine while 35 (40%) did not. Those with acetylcholine-induced chest pain demonstrated: (1) Increased CBF at rest (1.6 ± 0.7 vs. 1.2 ± 0.4, p = 0.004) (2) Decreased IMR with acetylcholine (acetylcholine-IMR = 29.7 ± 16.3 vs. 40.4 ± 17.1, p = 0.004), (3) Equivalent IMR following adenosine (Adenosine-IMR: 21.1 ± 10.7 vs. 21.8 ± 8.2, p = 0.76), (4) Increased adenosine-induced chest pain (40/52 = 77% vs. 7/35 = 20%, p < 0.0001), (5) Increased chest pain during exercise testing (30/46 = 63% vs. 4/29 = 12%, p < 0.00001) with no differences in exercise duration or electrocardiographic changes, and (6) Increased prevalence of epicardial endothelial dysfunction (33/52 = 63% vs. 14/35 = 40%, p = 0.03). Conclusions After excluding epicardial spasm, acetylcholine-induced chest pain is associated with increased pain during exercise and adenosine infusion, increased coronary blood flow at rest, decreased microvascular resistance in response to acetylcholine and increased prevalence of epicardial endothelial dysfunction. These findings raise questions about the mechanisms underlying acetylcholine-induced chest pain.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207