MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1568631432

Abstract 14860: Young Women with Stable CHD are More Likely to Develop Myocardial Ischemia with Mental Stress Than Men of Similar Age

2014· article· en· W1568631432 on OpenAlexaff
Viola Vaccarino, Pratik Pimple, Ernest Garcia, Jonathon A. Nye, Ibhar Al Mheid, Kobina Wilmot, Ronnie Ramadan, Amit Shah, Paolo Raggi, Fábio Esteves, Michael Kutner, Qi Long, J. Douglas Bremner, Arshed A. Quyyumi

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIschemiaMyocardial perfusion imagingCardiologyStress testing (software)Internal medicinePerfusionMental stressBruce protocolPhysical therapyBlood pressureHeart rate
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Emerging data suggest that young women with coronary heart disease (CHD) are disproportionally vulnerable to the adverse cardiovascular effects of emotional stress. We assessed myocardial ischemia induced by a standardized mental stress protocol to address this question. Hypothesis: Young women (≤55 years) with stable CHD are more likely than men of similar age to develop ischemia with a mental stress test, but not ischemia with a standard exercise or pharmacological stress test. Methods: We studied 534 patients with stable CHD who underwent 99mTc[[Unable to Display Character: ‐]]sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging at rest and with both mental (speech task) and physical (exercise or pharmacological) stress testing. A summed total severity score was computed to quantify hypoperfusion size and severity at rest and under both stress conditions with observer-independent software. The difference between stress and rest provided a quantitative measure of total ischemic perfusion deficit (...

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Health and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→