A Meta‐Analysis of Sex‐Related Differences in Outcomes After Primary Percutaneous Intervention for ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The increasing use of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) has improved clinical outcome in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, but the impact of sex on early and mid-term outcomes remains to be defined. METHODS: Medline, Cochrane Library, Biomed Central, and Google Scholar were searched for articles describing differences in baseline, periprocedural, and midterm outcomes after pPCI, by sex. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at early and mid-term follow-up. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital bleeding and stroke. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included. Women were older, had more frequent hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and hypercholesterolemia, as well as longer ischemia time and more shock at presentation. Men were more likely to have had a previous myocardial infarction. Female sex emerged as independently associated to early mortality (OR 1.1; 95%CI, 1.02-1.18) but not to mid-term mortality (OR, 1.01; 95%CI, 0.99-1.03). The pooled analysis showed a significantly higher risk of in hospital stroke (OR, 1.69; 95%CI, 1.11-2.56) and major bleeding (OR, 2.04; 95%CI, 1.51-2.77) in women. CONCLUSIONS: As compared to men, women undergoing pPCI have more bleedings and strokes, and a worse early, but not mid-term mortality. These findings may allow a better risk stratification of pPCI patients.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".