Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous reports of the effectiveness of psychological treatments (PTs) for cardiac patients reveal inconsistent results. We determined overall effects and gender differences. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials, containing a PT arm. The authors identified 43 relevant randomized trials; 23 reported mortality data for 9856 patients. The odds-ratio (OR) for all-cause mortality at follow-up of 2 years or less, comparing PT plus usual care vs. usual care only, was OR 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.94], but weakened with longer follow-up (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80-1.10). Mortality benefits only applied to men (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-1.00; OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.87-1.72 for women). Trials initiating treatment at least 2 months after a cardiac event showed greater mortality benefits than those initiating treatment right after the event (OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.11-0.70 vs. OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.86-1.15, respectively). Mortality benefits due to PT were achieved despite small concomitant changes in negative affect. PT of cardiac patients reduces mortality and event recurrence. The mortality benefits appeared only in men even after controlling for age differences. The timing for the initiation of PT may be a critical mediating variable for mortality outcomes.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".