Enhanced External Counterpulsation Outcomes Study: Retrospective Analyses of Data Obtained from Patients at a Single Medical Center in United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim was to explore the effectiveness of enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) therapy in patients with severe angina pectoris/ chronic heart failure symptoms, who were not suitable candidates for invasive treatment. This retrospective study employed a comprehensive methodology that includes individualized treatment, continuous monitoring, and thorough pre- and postprogram evaluations to assess the efficacy of EECP therapy. The standard protocol involved 35 one-hour treatments, with flexibility for extensions based on therapeutic progress. When pre- and posttreatment results were analyzed, EECP improved the original functional class compared with pretreatment. The mean difference in the functional class was 1.32 (0.92), p < 0.0001. Six-minute walk (6MW) distance improved from 383.6 m (110.24) to 423.1 m (121.50) with mean difference of 37.1 (44.99), p < 0.0001. Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) score improved from 3.9 (2.75) to 6.0 (4.17) with mean difference of 2.16 (3.8), p < 0.0001. Training metabolic equivalents (METs) improved from 3.0 (0.74) to 4.0 (1.57) with mean difference of 1.04 (1.2), p < 0.0001. Weekly anginal events decreased from 13.1 (13.19) to 3.2 (7.38) with mean difference of –9.78 (11.7), p < 0.0001. EECP resulted in improvement of angina pectoris functional class, the 6MW distance, reduction in the number of hospitalizations in first year posttreatment, a significant decrease in sublingual nitroglycerin use, improvement of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and improvement of DASI score.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".