MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990566875 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v6n7p83

Survey of the Effect of Opioid Abuse on the Extent of Coronary Artery Diseases

2014· article· en· W1990566875 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B. Rahimi Darabad, J. Vatandust, Mir Milad Pourmousavi Khoshknab, M. Hajahmadi Poorrafsanjani

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpioidMedicineArteryMedical emergencyAnesthesiaEmergency medicineInternal medicineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in our country. Recently, it has been found that the use of opium like other risk factors can be an independent risk factor for coronary artery disease. Therefore, this study examines the impact of opioid abuse on the extent of coronary artery diseases. METHODS: This study included 1170 individuals, who underwent coronary angiography in Seyed-ol-shohada and Taleghani hospitals, Urmia in 2012, were enrolled. The demographic data included age, sex, medical history, including history of diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and a history of opioid abuse and duration of smoking were extracted and entered in a questionnaire. RESULTS: The results of this study showed that 121 had taken opium and 1049 patients had not taken the drug. The results of this study showed that coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with drug use (88.5%) was significantly higher than the group without drug use (72.2 %) (P=0/000). However, significant differences are not exist between the two groups regarding the number of affected coronary arteries (P=0.679). CONCLUSION: although risk factors of CAD such as HTN and DM is higher in patients without opium addiction than in addicted patients, but CAD was more created in patients using drugs and this suggests drugs as an important risk factor for coronary artery disease.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207