MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 18092: Statin Use After an Acute In-Hospital Myocardial Infarction Among Medicare Beneficiaries

2013· article· en· W165002874 on OpenAlexaff
Huifeng Yun, Monika M. Safford, Todd M. Brown, Michael E. Farkouh, Shia T. Kent, Emily B. Levitan, Pradeep Sharma, Meredith L. Kilgore, Vera Bittner, Robert S. Rosenson, Paul Muntner

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionStatinEmergency medicineInternal medicineHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsCardiologyPhysical therapyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines recommend all patients are discharged on a statin following a coronary heart disease (CHD) event. Many patients have an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) while hospitalized for another reason but the use of statins upon discharge in this population has not been well studied. Methods: Using the Medicare 5% national random sample, we identified beneficiaries who had a hospital discharge diagnosis for AMI or who underwent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 2007-2009. Medicare requires the primary diagnosis code to represent the initial reason for hospitalization; secondary discharge diagnosis codes capture complications including in-hospital AMI. Beneficiaries taking and not taking statins prior to their hospitalization were analyzed separately. Filling a statin prescription within 90 days after hospital discharge was identified using Medicare Part D claims. Results: Of 5,810 and 8,517 Medicare beneficiaries taking and not taking statins prior to their CHD-related hospitalization, 84% and 55% filled a statin within 90 days of discharge, respectively. The proportion of beneficiaries filling a statin following discharge was substantially lower among those with a secondary versus primary discharge diagnosis of AMI, or PCI or CABG (Table). After multivariable adjustment, beneficiaries with a secondary discharge diagnosis of AMI were 41% (risk ratio = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.54 - 0.65) and 11% (risk ratio = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.82 - 0.97) less likely to fill a statin compared to those with a primary discharge diagnosis of AMI. Conclusion: A high percentage of Medicare beneficiaries with in-hospital AMIs do not fill statins following hospital discharge. Reasons why patients with in-hospital AMIs do fill statins following discharge need to be identified.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→