MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097501405

Comparison of Late (Four Years) Functional Health Status Between Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty Intervention and Off-Pump Left Internal Mammary Artery Bypass Grafting for Isolated High- Grade Narrowing of the Proximal Left Anterior Descending Coron

2015· article· en· W7097501405 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngioplastyAnginaRandomized controlled trialBypass graftingPercutaneous coronary interventionBypass surgeryStable anginaArteryMammary artery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a 4-year follow-up study, we compared functional health status (FHS) in patients randomized to surgery (n 51) or angioplasty (n 51) for an isolated narrowing of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery. FHS was assessed with the Short Form-36 and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaires. Although the occurrence of angina (p 0.036) and major adverse cardiac and cerebro-vascular events (p 0.02) was significantly higher 4 years after angioplasty, FHS did not differ between treatments and was comparable to a healthy refer-ence population. 2004 by Excerpta Medica Inc. (Am J Cardiol 2004;94:1414–1417) The present study evaluates whether the effect onfunctional health status (FHS) could optimize decision making between angioplasty and surgery in patients with an isolated high-grade narrowing of the proximal left anterior descending coronary ar-tery (LAD). The design and methods of this single-center randomized trial have been described previously.1 In brief, patients with Canadian Cardiovascular So-ciety class 2 angina pectoris due to a high-grade

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.309
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→