A Systematic Approach to the Evaluation of the Coronary Microcirculation Using Bolus Thermodilution: CATH CMD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) can cause myocardial ischemia in patients presenting with angina without obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA). Evaluating for CMD by using the thermodilution technique offers a widely accessible means of assessing microvascular resistance. Through this technique, 2 validated indices, namely coronary flow reserve and the index of microcirculatory resistance, can be computed, facilitating investigation of the coronary microcirculation. The index of microcirculatory resistance specifically estimates minimum achievable microvascular resistance within the coronary microcirculation. We aim to review the bolus thermodilution method, outlining the fundamental steps for conducting measurements and introducing an algorithmic approach (CATH CMD) to systematically evaluate the coronary microcirculation. Embracing a standardized approach, exemplified by the CATH CMD algorithm, will facilitate adoption of this technique and streamline the diagnosis of CMD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".