Refractory angina in women with ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease — A report from the Women’s Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation-Coronary Vascular Dysfunction (WISE-CVD) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women with suspected ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA) are often challenging to manage. We aimed to understand mechanisms and treatable pathways of refractory angina. The Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation – Coronary Vascular Dysfunction ( NCT00832702 ) recruited women between 2008 and 2015. In a pre-defined subgroup ( n = 198) with repeat cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) at 1-year, we investigated severity of angina (Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7) in relation to risk factors, baseline invasive coronary function testing, and CMRI parameters. Refractory angina was defined as SAQ-7 score < 75 at baseline and < 10-point improvement at 1-year. Women with refractory angina ( n = 60, 30 %), compared to those without, had lower incomes, and higher proportion of hypertension and nitrate use at 1-year ( p < 0.05). They also had significantly lower baseline coronary blood flow (CBF) response to acetylcholine ( p < 0.01). Myocardial perfusion reserve index was not different at baseline or follow-up. At 1-year, changes in SAQ domain scores significantly differed between groups, with persistent lack of improvement in physical limitation, disease perception, angina stability, and angina frequency ( p < 0.05) in the refractory group. In an age-adjusted regression model, hypertension (OR 4.48; 95 % CI 1.23–16.25; p = 0.02) and abnormal CBF (OR 3.34; 95 % CI 1.04–10.72; p = 0.04) were associated with refractory angina. Refractory angina is common in women with INOCA. Hypertension and endothelial-dependent microvascular dysfunction are independently associated with a 4- and 3-fold increase in refractory angina at 1-year, respectively. These findings may identify potential treatment targets to reduce angina burden in INOCA.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".