Do Younger Women Fare Worse? Sex Differences in Acute Myocardial Infarction Hospitalization and Early Mortality Rates Over Ten Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent research has identified younger women as an "at-risk" population with rising prevalence of cardiac risk factors and excess mortality risk following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, population-based data on trends in AMI hospitalization and early mortality post AMI among younger adults is scarce. We, therefore, aimed to provide a 10-year, descriptive analysis of these trends in a Canadian setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed trends and sex differences in AMI hospitalization and 30-day mortality rates using negative binomial and logistic regression, respectively. From 2000 to 2009, there were 70,628 AMI hospitalizations in adults aged ≥20 years, in British Columbia, Canada, with 17.1% of cohort being younger adults ≤55 years. Overall, age-standardized AMI rates (per 100,000 population) declined similarly in men (295.8 to 247.7) and women (152.1 to 128.8) [sex-year interaction p=0.81]. However, these trends differed according to age (age-sex-year interaction p=0.02) with increased rates observed only in younger women (+1.7% per year; p=0.04). The 30-day mortality rates declined similarly for women (19.4% to 13.9%) and men (13.0% to 9.3%) (sex-year interaction p=0.33). Yet, younger women continued to have excess mortality risk, compared with younger men, even in the most recent period [odds ratio: (2008-09)=1.61 (95% onfidence interval: 1.25, 2.08)]. CONCLUSION: While the overall AMI hospitalization and 30-day mortality rates significantly declined in women and men, hospitalization rates in women ≤55 years increased and their excess risk of 30-day mortality persisted. These findings highlight the need to intensify strategies to reduce the incidence of AMI and improve outcomes after AMI in younger women.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".