MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416098075 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf839

Endotypes of angina with non-obstructive coronary arteries: a prospective multicentre study

2025· article· en· W4416098075 on OpenAlexaff
Steve Miner, Hernán Mejía‐Rentería, Antonio Maria Leone, Ornela Velollari, Robert Sykes, Simone Biscaglia, Giuseppe Esposito, Domenico Galante, Jacopo Oreglia, Daniel Ang, Maren Weferling, Luigi Di Serafino, Colin Berry, Gianluca Campo, Javier Escaned, Filippo Crea, Tommaso Gori

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSouthlake Regional Health Center
FundersBritish Heart FoundationDeutsches Zentrum für Herz-Kreislaufforschung
KeywordsAnginaHemodynamicsStable anginaProspective cohort studyAdenosineCoronary heart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Angina with non-obstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA) is a prevalent myocardial ischaemic syndrome, and women are disproportionately affected. Mechanisms of ischaemia are challenging to diagnose and treatment is empirical. METHODS: Consecutive patients with angina (or equivalent symptoms), no angiographically severe stenosis and fractional flow reserve > 0.80 undergoing coronary functional testing were prospectively enrolled in nine centres in Europe and North America. Haemodynamic endotypes were assessed measuring coronary flow reserve and resistance using an intracoronary pressure- and temperature-sensitive sensor and bolus thermodilution. Measurements were obtained during resting conditions and following adenosine and acetylcholine. Chest pain and electrocardiographic ischaemic changes were recorded. The participant characteristics of each haemodynamic endotype were investigated using regression analysis. A three-step Delphi consensus method was applied to identify endotype-specific therapies. RESULTS: Overall, 1001 participants (mean age 62 ± 11years, 56% female) were enrolled and eight distinct endotypes were defined by adenosine testing (n = 3) and acetylcholine testing (n = 5), respectively: high resting coronary blood flow (n = 195, 19%); high resistance (n = 125, 13%); compensated high resistance (n = 112, 11%); epicardial coronary spasm (n = 162, 17%); microvascular spasm (n = 75, 8%); endothelial dysfunction (n = 96, 10%); ischaemia w/o haemodynamic changes (n = 68, 7%); and enhanced cardiac nociception (n = 79, 8%). More than one endotype occurred in 119 (12%) individuals and normal responses occurred in 234 (23%) individuals. Each endotype was associated with distinct clinical correlates. The Delphi consensus (100% 'agree' or 'strongly agree') identified endotype-specific medical therapy with a Likert scale score ≥ 6 for all endotypes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected ANOCA, assessment of the symptomatic, electrocardiographic, and haemodynamic responses to adenosine and acetylcholine identifies distinct endotypes and enables mechanism-guided stratified medicine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207