Health-Related Quality of Life in Women with Coronary Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women with coronary artery disease (CAD) have reported worse health-related quality of life (HRQOL) than men. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to explore HRQOL in women with CAD undergoing coronary angiography. Specifically, the effects of age and depressive symptoms on HRQOL were examined. METHOD: Data were obtained from the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) database. A total of 1034 women underwent coronary angiography between February, 2004 and January, 2005. Questionnaires measuring HRQOL and depressive symptoms were mailed within 1 week of index cardiac catheterization. RESULTS: There were 437 women (42.3%) who responded to the questionnaires. After adjusting HRQOL scores for sociodemographic and clinical variables, depressive symptoms were the strongest predictor of HRQOL; increased age was associated with worse physical functioning and positive disease perception; higher BMI with anginal stability; revascularization with anginal stability and treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Overall, the variables measured accounted for a small proportion of the variance in HRQOL. Further research is needed to understand the complex relationship among age, depressive symptoms, and HRQOL in women with CAD.
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".