Polymorphonuclear blood leukocytes and restenosis after intracoronary implantation of drug-eluting stentsThis article is one of a selection of papers from the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Translational Knowledge for Heart Health (published in part 1 of a 2-part Special Issue).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peripheral blood contents of osteonectin-positive progenitor cells and polymorphonuclear granulocytes were examined by flow cytometry in 38 patients after myocardial revascularisation with drug-eluting stents. Repeat coronary angiography performed 6-12 months after stent implantation revealed in-stent restenosis in 15 patients and its absence in 23 patients. The plasma levels of osteonectin-positive progenitor cells, neutrophils, and basophils did not differ in patients with and without restenosis. Eosinophil blood levels in patients with and without restenosis were 262+/-68 and 124+/-67 cells/microL (mean+/-SD, p<0.001), respectively. Only one of 19 patients (5%) with eosinophil content lower than the distribution median for the entire group developed restenosis, whereas in the group with eosinophil contents higher than the median (n=19) restenosis occurred in 14 patients (74%, p<0.001). Our findings suggest that the frequency of restenoses after stenting is related to high peripheral blood eosinophil content.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".