MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relation Between Red Blood Cell Distribution Width and Cardiovascular Event Rate in People With Coronary Disease

2008· article· en· W2015706524 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease Prognosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRed blood cell distribution widthHazard ratioInternal medicineQuartileMyocardial infarctionHeart failureConfidence intervalCardiologyFramingham Risk ScoreProportional hazards modelPopulationDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Higher levels of red blood cell distribution width (RDW) may be associated with adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure. We examined the association between RDW and the risk of all-cause mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in a population of people with coronary disease who were free of heart failure at baseline. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a post hoc analysis of data from the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events study. Baseline RDW was measured in 4111 participants who were randomized to receive pravastatin 40 mg daily or placebo and followed for a median of 59.7 months. We used Cox proportional hazards models to examine the association between RDW and adverse clinical outcomes. During nearly 60 months of follow-up, 376 participants died. A significant association was noted between baseline RDW level and the adjusted risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio per percent increase in RDW, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 1.24). After categorization based on quartile of baseline RDW and further adjustment for hematocrit and other cardiovascular risk factors, a graded independent relation between RDW and death was observed (P for trend=0.001). For instance, participants with RDW in the highest quartile had an adjusted hazard ratio for death of 1.78 (95% confidence interval, 1.28 to 2.47) compared with those in the lowest quartile. Higher levels of RDW were also associated with increased risk of coronary death/nonfatal myocardial infarction, new symptomatic heart failure, and stroke. CONCLUSIONS: We found a graded independent relation between higher levels of RDW and the risk of death and cardiovascular events in people with prior myocardial infarction but no symptomatic heart failure at baseline.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · 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