MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1572350182 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v8n1p255

Assessment of Risk Factors in Patients With Myocardial Infarction

2015· article· en· W1572350182 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fatemeh Kiani, Nasrin Hesabi, Azizollah Arbabisarjou

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionChecklistAtrial fibrillationFamily historyDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseInfarctionCardiologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery diseases (CAD) are one of the important health problems in the world, although considerable progresses have been made to decrease the mortality, they are still the first cause of death in many countries. Hence, the necessity of examining effective factors and risk factors on CAD can be one of the most important health priorities in many countries like Iran. OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to assess the risk factors in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) in Zahedan. MATERIALS & METHODS: This is a cross sectional study in which 213 patients were examined. They had been diagnosed to have heart failure. Data gathering took 18 months. Data gathering tool was a designed checklist which was filled up by an experienced nurse during interview. Obtained results were recorded in files and analyzed in SPSS 21. RESULTS: Results showed that 70% of patients were women and only 30% were men. 48% of them were illiterate and patients mean age was 58.3. SD had been 12.6. The mean of pain onset time till referring to hospital was 11 hours with SD of 2.1. 17% of patients (coronary artery diseases history), 25.5% (hypertension history), 26% (diabetes history), 15.5% (cholesterol history), 13% (smoking) and 3% have reported CABG history. The majority of people who referred had inferior MI (40.4%). 67.1% normal rhythm, 2.8% atrial fibrillation and 16% had ventricular tachycardia. Statistical tests showed a significant correlation between sex and the mean of referring time (p<0.05) but the relation between age and referring time was not significant. CONCLUSION: Effective risk factors on MI were recognized in this study. Some of them such as age, sex and education cannot be modified but many are controllable such as hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol, and smoking and on time referring after pain onset. Having considered the results of this study health promotion for society and especially vulnerable people can be provided by omitting or reducing risk factors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207