Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research has shown that there are differences between women and men in the epidemiology, presentation, and outcomes of coronary heart disease. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine if there were sex differences in the symptoms of unstable angina (UA) and if so, to determine if these differences remained after controlling for age, diabetes, anxiety, depression, and functional status. METHOD: This descriptive study used a nonexperimental, quantitative design. A convenience sample of 50 women and 50 men, hospitalized with UA, were recruited from an urban and a suburban medical center. Instruments included the Unstable Angina Symptoms Questionnaire (UASQ), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification of angina. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis indicated that women experienced significantly (p <.05) more shortness of breath (74% vs. 60%), weakness (74% vs. 48%), difficulty breathing (66% vs. 38%), nausea (42% vs. 22%), and loss of appetite (40% vs. 10%) than men. After controlling for age, diabetes, anxiety, depression, and functional status, women were still more likely than men to report weakness (p =.03), difficulty breathing (p =.02), nausea (p =.03), and loss of appetite (p =.02). Chi-square analysis of symptom descriptors revealed that women disclosed more (p <.05) upper back pain (42% vs. 18%), stabbing pain (32% vs. 12%), and knifelike pain (28% vs. 12%). Women also had a significantly higher incidence of depression (22% vs. 2%, p <.01). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that women and men have similar symptoms during an episode of UA, however, a higher proportion of women have less typical symptoms.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it