12 measurements spanning 28 days, net +43. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 6,921–6,996 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
3 Sept 2026, 14:36
6,987
+12
31 Aug 2026, 18:26
6,975
+12
29 Aug 2026, 04:33
6,963
+19
25 Aug 2026, 20:36
6,944
+10
22 Aug 2026, 13:02
6,934
+4
19 Aug 2026, 04:48
6,930
-3
16 Aug 2026, 03:16
6,933
+3
12 Aug 2026, 22:17
6,930
-1
9 Aug 2026, 20:58
6,931
-5
7 Aug 2026, 07:06
6,936
-8
6 Aug 2026, 07:15
6,944
no change
6 Aug 2026, 07:08
6,944
first reading
Engagement
17 posts held, back to 26 July 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 12 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
9.52%
avg views ÷ 6,987 subscribers
Avg views / post
666
6 posts measured
Reaction rate
3.16%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
6
of 17 held
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views — note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 19 August 2026
Posts held
17 (26 July 2026 – 19 August 2026)
Views total
3,993
Reactions total
126
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
20 Aug 2026, 03:40 UTC
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
Reaction mix
390 reactions across 16 posts, in 12 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 39.5% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
154
39.5%
👍
88
22.6%
🔥
85
21.8%
👏
28
7.18%
❤🔥
19
4.87%
🤓
10
2.56%
🆒
1
0.256%
🍓
1
0.256%
👻
1
0.256%
💔
1
0.256%
🤷♂
1
0.256%
🥰
1
0.256%
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 17 of the 17 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 422 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 17 most recent posts we hold, published 26 July 2026 to 19 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
🔥Синкопе: современный подход к диагностике и ведению. Эпидемиология, классификация и дифференциальный диагноз
Часть 1
В свежем выпуске The New England Journal of Medicine опубликован фундаментальный обзор профессора Роуз Энн Кенни, ведущего эксперта в области гериатрической кардиологии. Публикуем ключевые факты и структурированный разбор патологии для практикующих кардиологов.
📊Эпидемиология и риски
Определение: Тр…
Окклюдер ушка левого предсердия или антикоагулянты при ФП: что показывают все РКИ вместе?
Тема активно обсуждается. За последнее время вышли сразу несколько РКИ, сравнивавших окклюзию ушка левого предсердия (LAAC) с антикоагулянтной терапией, причем результаты получились не совсем одинаковыми. Недавно мы подробно разбирали CHAMPION-AF и CLOSURE-AF: см. здесь.
Теперь в Europace опубликован метаанализ всех доступных …
Сочетание ХСН и заболеваний печени — это стремительно растущее бремя в современной медицине.
‼️В журнале European Journal of Heart Failure опубликован международный экспертный позиционный документ, который упорядочивает подходы к ведению этой сложной когорты больных. Первый автор статьи - один из авторов нашего канала и эксперт АМПК Анжела Евгеньевна Соловьева.
📊1. Эпидемиология и риски
Около 1.5–2% пациентов с о…
Итак, если толщина стенки ЛЖ у пациента 15 мм и более - следует заподозрить ГКМП.
Изображение для викторины заимствовано тут
Критерием диагноза ГКМП у взрослых является увеличение толщины стенки ЛЖ в одном или более сегментах ≥15 мм (определяемое любым визуализирующим методом — ЭхоКГ/МРТ/КТ), которая не объясняется исключительно увеличением нагрузки давлением.
У родственников пробанда критерием диагноза ГКМП являе…
Какова диагностически значимая максимальная толщина стенки левого желудочка при гипертрофической кардиомиопатии (ГКМП) у взрослого пациента при отсутствии иной причины гипертрофии?
10 мм2%
12 мм5%
13 мм2%
13-14 мм15%
15 мм63%
20 мм7%
Не знаю, расскажите5%
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
📕В NEJM опубликованы результаты исследования EPCAT III — монотерапия аспирином (АСК) в сравнении с ривароксабаном (5 дней) с переходом на АСК для профилактики венозных тромбоэмболий (ВТЭО) после тотального эндопротезирования тазобедренного или коленного сустава.
Профилактика ВТЭО после артропластики крупных суставов остается неоднородной: применяются АСК, ПОАК, НМГ и варфарин. Ранее в исследовании EPCAT II было пока…
Разбираемся в ЭКГ-викторине!
И да, кто нас внимательно читает, абсолютно прав 😁 - это вновь двунаправленная ЖТ - специфическая ширококомплексная желудочковая аритмия с чередованием оси и/или морфологии комплексов QRS от удара к удару.
Мы уже разбирали этот вариант нарушений ритма в предыдущем посте
На ЭКГ мы видим атриовентрикулятрную диссоциацию - P следуют позади QRS и в своем ритме - с частотой около 70 уд/мин, а…
📍Консенсус ACC по СНсФВ — часть 3
Лечение СНсФВ
В первой части мы обсудили шкалы вероятности СНсФВ, а во второй — диагностику и поиск состояний, которые могут имитировать СНсФВ или требовать специфического лечения. Теперь перейдём к терапии.
📍Часть 1. Основная терапия
Одно из главных изменений нового консенсуса это появление более чёткого алгоритма медикаментозного лечения СНсФВ (Figure 6).
Основа терапии
✅ инги…
🧪Консенсус ACC 2026 по ХСН с сохраненной ФВЛЖ (СНсФВ) — часть 2
Диагностический алгоритм СНсФВ: как отличить ее от других заболеваний
Часть 1 - тут.
Одним из наиболее заметных акцентов документа стал раздел, посвященный состояниям, имитирующим СНсФВ (HFpEF mimics). Они могут сопровождаться одышкой, снижением переносимости физической нагрузки, отеками, повышением уровня натрийуретических пептидов и другими признакам…
❤11👍7🔥5🍓1👏1🥰1
Showing the 12 most recent of 17 posts we hold for @publ_ampk. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Polls
The poll we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered it when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
Какова диагностически значимая максимальная толщина стенки левого желудочка при гипертрофической кардиомиопатии (ГКМП) у взрослого пациента при отсутствии иной причины гипертрофии?
10 мм2%
12 мм5%
13 мм2%
13-14 мм15%
15 мм63%
20 мм7%
Не знаю, расскажите5%
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none. The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.
The shares need not add up to 100. Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.
Read from the 17 most recent posts we hold, published 26 July 2026 to 19 August 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.
Forward network
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Mentions
Named by 3 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
Appears in Telegram’s recommendations for other channels
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
Кардиолог Чайковская @cardiolog_chaykovskaya · 58,158 Telegram ranks this channel #16 of 94 here — alongside 93 others — read 23 August 2026
Blog Kardiologa 🩺 @blog_kardiologa · 137,258 Telegram ranks this channel #37 of 96 here — alongside 95 others — read 13 August 2026
This channel appears in 2 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
Cite this entry
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 3 September 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“АМПК. Междисциплинарные проблемы кардиологии” (@publ_ampk), 6,987 subscribers as measured 3 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/publ_ampk.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.
