Qu-shi-hua-tan decoction's efficacy and safety for patients with angina following coronary revascularization: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Qu-shi-hua-tan decoction (QSHTD), formulated by academician Chen Keji, is an empirical decoction for coronary heart disease (CHD). We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and safety of QSHTD in managing angina after coronary revascularization (AACR) in CHD patients. Methods and design: This double-blind randomized controlled trial will be conducted at Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine. We will allocate 98 qualified participants to either the experimental or control group in a 1:1 ratio through random selection. The experimental group will be given standard care along with QSHTD, whereas the control group will receive standard care and a placebo. The study will span 26 weeks, consisting of a 2-week initial phase, a 12-week intervention phase, and a 12-week monitoring phase. The main outcome measure will be myocardial blood flow (MBF) assessed using adenosine stress real-time myocardial perfusion echocardiography (RTMPE). The secondary outcomes will be Canadian Cardiovascular Sociation Classification, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) symptom evaluation; and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Discussion: This study seeks to deliver compelling proof of the superior methodological and reporting standards of QSHTD's effectiveness and safety within AACR treatment. Clinical Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registration Center [www.chictr.org.cn]. The trial was registered on November 26, 2020 [ChiCTR2000040270].
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 | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.010 |
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".