MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125711070 · doi:10.1714/2382.25484

C1-C77

2016· article· W7125711070 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueGiornale italiano di cardiologia · 2016
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdverse effectAnginaReducerRevascularizationCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyRefractory (planetary science)Quality of life (healthcare)Single Center

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims.To evaluate the safety and clinical efficacy of the Coronary Sinus (CS) Reducer in attenuating angina severity in patients suffering from severe refractory angina, in a real-world population.Methods.Thirty patients with refractory angina, objective evidence of myocardial ischemia and unsuitable for revascularization were treated with CS Reducer implantation at our center from March 2015 to June 2016.Safety endpoints included procedural success and no device-related adverse events.Efficacy endpoints, assessed at 3-month follow-up, were a reduction in Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina score, improvement in quality of life assessed by Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), improvement in exercise tolerance assessed by six-minute walk test (6MWT), and reduction in pharmacological anti-anginal therapy.Results.Out of a total of thirty patients who underwent CS Reducer implantation during the study period, complete 3-month follow-up was obtained in 18 patients.Regarding the safety endpoint, procedural success was obtained in all patients and there were no device-related adverse effects observed during the procedure or follow-up period.Regarding the efficacy endpoint, 11 out of 18 patients (61%) had an improvement of at least 2 CCS classes (p<0.001) with a mean reduction of CCS class of 1.8±0.8 per patient.All SAQ items improved significantly (mean improvement on 100-point scale was 30±7.4).Regarding exercise tolerance, we reported a significant improvement assessed by 6MWT with a mean distance of 402±124 metres at 3-month follow-up compared with the mean distance reported at baseline (263±97) metres (p=0.002).Thirteen patients (72%, p=0.009) had a reduction of at least 1 anti-anginal drug and 3 patients (16%, p<0.001) had a reduction of 2 or more anti-anginal drugs.Conclusions.In our real-world single center experience, the implantation of the CS Reducer appears safe, and is associated with an improvement in anginal symptoms and quality of life in patients with refractory angina who were not candidates for revascularization.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1130.034

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGiornale italiano di cardiologiaSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207