Sex Differences in the Prognostic Importance of Diabetes in Patients With Ischemic Heart Disease Undergoing Coronary Angiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Women with ischemic heart disease have poorer outcomes than men and are suggested to have greater risk associated with diabetes. We evaluated the prognosis associated with diabetes, in analyses stratified by sex, to determine whether similar differences are seen in a large unselected cohort of patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcomes Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH), a clinical data collection and follow-up initiative capturing all patients undergoing cardiac catheterization in Alberta, Canada, the relative significance of diabetes on long-term survival in 13152 men and 4249 women was evaluated in patients presenting with or without myocardial infarction and according to first treatment received. RESULTS: The 1-year mortality rates were 4.7% and 6.8% in men and women (P < 0.001), 4.1% and 7.4% in nondiabetic and diabetic men (P < 0.001), and 5.8% and 9.6% in nondiabetic and diabetic women, respectively (P < 0.001). The risk-adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratios associated with diabetes in myocardial infarction were 1.03 in men and 1.20 in women. The diabetes hazard ratios for percutaneous coronary intervention were 1.28 in men and 1.40 in women, 1.23 in men and 1.32 in women for bypass surgery, and 1.26 in men and 1.31 in women for medical therapy (P = NS for all diabetes hazard ratio comparisons between men and women). CONCLUSIONS: Hazard ratios quantifying the adverse prognosis associated with diabetes in patients undergoing angiography are consistently higher among women than men, but the differences across sexes are not statistically significant. These slight sex differences noted in the APPROACH registry are similar to previously reported findings and may be clinically important.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".