The effect of biologic therapies on the risk of suffering a myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case-control study aimed to test for significant difference between the risks of suffering a cardiovascular event between two groups of moderate to severe psoriasis (PSO) patients: those that had a biologic therapy (BT) and those that did not. The aim was to test for a protective factor in biologic therapies as patients with moderate to severe psoriasis have been reported to be at a higher risk of experiencing a cardiovascular event due to the chronic inflammatory nature of the disease. Cases were extracted from patient charts at Newlab Life Sciences, Inc. (NLS) and transferred to an electronic dataset, while controls were obtained from the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information (NLCHI). The results of a logistic regression failed to show a statistically significant relationship between the outcome, myocardial infarction (MI), and the use of a biologic therapy however, there was a protective trend for those patients on a biologic therapy. There also appeared to be a relationship between age of onset and MI, as those patients diagnosed before the age of 25 saw a statistically significant greater risk of suffering an MI than those diagnosed after the age of 25. There were several limitations to this study including limited data and confounders, such as lifestyle factors and the change in price and availability of biologics to PSO patients over time. Based on the current literature limited evidence exists that supports the hypothesis that there is a significant protective factor associated with biologics in relation to cardiovascular events.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".