Quality of life after acute myocardial infarction: A comparison of diabetic versus non-diabetic acute myocardial infarction patients in Quebec acute care hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have evaluated the individual effects of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and diabetes mellitus on health-related quality of life outcomes (QOL). Due to the rising incidence of these comorbid conditions, it is important to examine the synergistic impact of diabetes mellitus and AMI on QOL. METHODS: In this study, we assessed using several previously validated questionnaires the QOL and functional status of 96 diabetic patients and 491 non-diabetic patients admitted to Quebec hospital sites with AMI between 1997 and 1998. We also conducted multivariate analyses to ascertain whether diabetes mellitus was an independent determinant of SF-36 physical functioning (PCS) and mental health (MCS) component score QOL outcomes after AMI. RESULTS: Both patient groups had similar baseline clinical characteristics, but diabetic patients had slightly higher rates of cardiac risk factors compared to non-diabetics. Overall, QOL measures were similar between both patient groups at baseline, but diabetic patients reported poorer functional status than non-diabetic patients. Over the study period, there were significant differences between the QOL and functional status of diabetic and non-diabetic populations. By one year, diabetic patients reported poorer QOL outcomes than non-diabetic patients. However, diabetic patients showed greater improvements in their functional status, but were less likely to return to work compared to non-diabetic patients. In contrast with these findings, our multivariate analyses showed that diabetes mellitus was not an independent determinant of QOL and functional status. CONCLUSION: Our study findings suggest that diabetes mellitus is not an independent determinant of QOL after AMI.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".