Pharmacological Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease With Recombinant Fibroblast Growth Factor-2 Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background—Single-bolus intracoronary administration of fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF2) improved symptoms and myocardial function in a phase I, open-label trial in patients with coronary artery disease. We conducted the FGF Initiating RevaScularization Trial (FIRST) to evaluate further the efficacy and safety of recombinant FGF2 (rFGF2). Methods and Results—FIRST is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a single intracoronary infusion of rFGF2 at 0, 0.3, 3, or 30 g/kg (n337 patients). Efficacy was evaluated at 90 and 180 days by exercise tolerance test, myocardial nuclear perfusion imaging, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and Short-Form 36 questionnaire. Exercise tolerance was increased at 90 days in all groups and was not significantly different between placebo and FGF-treated groups. rFGF2 reduced angina symptoms as measured by the angina frequency score of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (overall P0.035) and the physical component summary scale of the Short-Form 36 (pairwise P0.033, all FGF groups versus placebo). These differences were more pronounced in highly symptomatic patients (baseline angina frequency score 40 or Canadian Cardiovascular Society score of III or IV). None of the differences were significant at 180 days because of continued improvement in the placebo group. Adverse events were similar across all groups, except for hypotension, which occurred with higher frequency in the 30-g/kg rFGF2 group. Conclusions—A single intracoronary infusion of rFGF2 does not improve exercise tolerance or myocardial perfusion but does show trends toward symptomatic improvement at 90 (but not 180) days. (Circulation. 2002;105:788-793.)
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".