Antidepressant use, serotonin transporter affinity, and reinfarction among patients receiving clopidogrel: a population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Conflicting evidence exists regarding the association between antidepressant use and reinfarction among high-risk cardiovascular patients. Recent evidence suggests that clinical benefit associated with antidepressants may be related to serotonergic activity, suggesting that some antidepressants may offer greater advantages than others. METHODS: We conducted a population-based nested case-control study among patients aged 66 years or older who commenced clopidogrel between April 1, 2002 and December 31, 2009, following hospital discharge for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Cases were those who were readmitted for AMI, underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or died within 90 days of discharge. Three controls were matched to each case on age, PCI, and the date of hospital discharge. We categorized exposure to antidepressants as current or no use within 120 days before the index date, and the serotonergic activity of antidepressants was further categorized as low, medium, and high according to their affinity for the serotonin transporter. RESULTS: Among 24 090 patients who received clopidogrel following AMI, we identified 2494 cases. Of these, 2444 (98%) were successfully matched to 7045 controls. After extensive multivariable adjustment, antidepressant use was not associated with lower risk of the composite outcome (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.11 and 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.27). The absence of association was consistent across the different antidepressant groups categorized by serotonin transporter affinity. CONCLUSION: In high-risk cardiovascular patients with a history of AMI and treated with clopidogrel, antidepressant use is associated with no additional reduction in risk of reinfarction irrespective of serotonin transporter affinity.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".