Comparative Cardiac Anatomy and Transmyocardial Laser Revascularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparative cardiac anatomy related to the analysis of the initial clinical experience of transmyocardial laser revascularization (tmlr) in patients with severe diffuse coronary artery disease. methods 20 patients were submitted to tmlr at the heart institute (incor), university of são paulo medical school, brazil, isolated or in association with conventional coronary artery bypass graft (cabg). all patients had severe diffuse coronary artery disease, with angina functional class iii/iv (canadian cardiovascular society score) unresponsive to medical therapy. fourteen patients were submitted to tmlr as the sole therapy, whereas 6 underwent concomitant cabg. fifty per cent of the patients had either been previously submitted to a cabg or to a percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (ptca). mean age was 60 years, ranging from 45 to 74 years. results all patients had three‐vessel disease, with normal or mildly impaired left ventricular global function. follow‐up ranged from 1 to 13 months (mean 6.6 months), with no postoperative short or long term mortality. there was significant symptom improvement after the procedure, with 85% of the patients free of angina, and the remaining 15 % of the patients showing improvement in functional class, as well as in exercise tolerance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".