Does a birthday predispose to vascular events?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of birthdays on the onset and course of vascular events such as stroke, TIA, and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: This population-based study included all emergency department (ED) admissions due to ischemic stroke, TIA, or AMI from April 2002 to March 2004 in Ontario, Canada. All cases were identified through the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System. Calculations of daily and weekly numbers of events were centered on the patient's birthday and the week of the birthday. Statistical analyses include binomial tests and logistic regression. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 24,315 ED admissions with acute stroke, 16,088 with TIAs, and 29,090 with AMI. The observed number of vascular events during the birthday was higher than the expected daily number of visits for stroke (87 vs 67; p = 0.009), TIA (58 vs 44; p = 0.02), and AMI (97 vs 80; p = 0.027) but not for selected control conditions (asthma, appendicitis, head trauma). Vascular events were more likely to occur on birthday (242 vs 191; odds ratio [OR] = 1.27). No significant differences were observed during the birthday week for any of the conditions. Multivariate logistic regression showed that birthday vascular events were more likely to occur in patients with a history of hypertension (OR = 1.88; 95% CI 1.09 to 3.24). Sensitivity analyses with alternative definitions of birthday week did not alter the results. CONCLUSIONS: Stress associated with birthdays may trigger vascular events in patients with predisposing conditions.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".