Long-term rates of cardiovascular events in patients with the metabolic syndrome according to severity of coronary-angiographic alterations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term risk of mortality and cardiovascular events, related to metabolic syndrome (MetS), in patients with less, or more severe coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: One thousand and eighty patients were divided in four groups, according to severity of CAD (1=less than 50% or nonsignificant stenoses; 2=greater or significant stenoses), and according to MetS (A=no; B=yes). Risk was evaluated with the Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: About 18.9% of patients had less and 81.1% more advanced CAD. MetS was present in 45.1% of the first, and in 52.9% of the second group. At baseline, patients with MetS, or significant stenoses, had less favorable medical, biochemical, and angiographic characteristics. During a follow-up of 12.6+/-3.4 years, group 1B had higher incidence (16.3 vs. 7.1%) and hazard ratio [2.36 (1.001-5.57; P=0.0497)] of myocardial infarction than group 1A; group 2B had a higher incidence (19.0 vs. 11.7%) and hazard ratio [1.67 (1.18-2.37; P=0.0041)] of stroke than group 2A. Groups 2A and 2B, as compared with groups 1A and 1B, had a higher incidence of myocardial infarction (39.1 vs. 7.1; 41.8 vs. 16.3%); group 2B had higher incidence of stroke than group 1B (19.0 vs. 9.8%). After adjustment for common risk factors, group 2B retained an elevated risk of stroke. After additional adjustment for diabetes, no event was significantly related to MetS. CONCLUSION: At baseline, coronary patients with MetS, or significant angiographic alterations, had more cardiovascular risk factors. During follow-up, both MetS and significant CAD increased the risk of cardiovascular morbidity but not of mortality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".