Normal angiographic tapering of the coronary arteries.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although the size of normal coronary arteries has been reported, the expected magnitude of angiographic tapering has not. Accordingly, the coronary angiograms of 13 men and 13 women with normal and right dominant coronary arteries were analyzed in detail to calculate the normal tapering of angiographic segments. BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease is a diffuse process that can lead to the underestimation of the extent of lumen narrowing by angiographic analysis. Knowledge about the expected size of the angiographic lumen may help to overcome this problem in quantitative angiographic studies. Similarly, the expected magnitude of tapering is potentially useful to identify segments with nonapparent disease if the propensity of atheroma to build up distally and at branch points induces greater than expected tapering. METHODS: Lumen diameter was measured in 13 main segments. Two tapering indexes (T1 and T2) were defined. T1 was the difference between the proximal and distal segment diameter, divided by the proximal segment diameter, expressed as a percentage. T2 was the difference between the mean diameter of the proximal half of a segment and the distal diameter, divided by the mean of the proximal half of the segment, expressed as a percentage. RESULTS: In women, for the proximal and distal left anterior descending artery, T1 was 18 14% and 29 9%, respectively, while T2 was 14 11% and 21 9%, respectively. The right coronary artery (RCA) demonstrated a lesser magnitude of T1 and T2 tapering. In women, T1 was 9 12% and 7 8% for the proximal and the distal RCA, respectively, while T2 was 4 10% and 2 9% for the proximal and the distal RCA, respectively. Similar tapering results were obtained in men. CONCLUSIONS: The estimation of an expected magnitude of tapering of coronary arteries may identify diseased segments that are not angiographically stenotic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".