The Impact of Anxiety Disorders on Assessment of Myocardial Ischemia and Exercise Stress Test Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity of electrocardiogram (ECG) versus single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) assessments of ischemia in patients with anxiety disorders (AD) and the extent to which patients exhibit poorer exercise performance, compared with patients without AD. METHODS: Patients referred for nuclear exercise stress testing (N = 2271) underwent a structured psychiatric interview (PRIME-MD) to assess for AD. Exercise performance parameters were assessed during ECG treadmill testing, after which patients underwent SPECT imaging. RESULTS: Analyses revealed that patients with AD exhibited lower peak exercise systolic blood pressure and rate pressure product than patients without AD. When major depressive disorder was included as an additional covariate, the previous results became trends. Results also indicated a lower rate of electrically positive ecg tests and a higher rate of false-negative diagnoses of myocardial ischemia according to ecg among patients with AD. Including major depressive disorder as a covariate rendered the effects of ad nonsignificant. There was no evidence of reduced exercise performance in patients with AD. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that AD may be associated with mild impairments in cardiovascular exercise reactivity and may also alter the detection of myocardial ischemia using ecg assessments in patients referred for exercise stress testing. However, the influence of AD appears to be moderated by comorbid depression. Results suggest that exercise test performance and detection of ischemia may be influenced by mood and/or anxiety disorders and that greater efforts should be made to include routine mood and/or anxiety disorder screening as part of exercise stress testing protocols. Evaluation of electrocardiogram (ECG) versus single photon emission computed tomography assessment of myocardial ischemia in patients with anxiety disorders (AD) revealed that AD may be associated with impairments in cardiovascular exercise reactivity and may alter detection of myocardial ischemia using ECG assessments; effects seem to be moderated by comorbid depression.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".