MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2040576835 · doi:10.1136/ebn.11.1.31

Women’s experiences of myocardial infarction were described in terms of gradual onset, not having chest pain, and responding to symptomsCommentary

2008· letter· en· W2040576835 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Caldwell

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChest painMedicineMyocardial infarctionPhysical therapyInternal medicineCardiologyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

J W Albarran Correspondence to: Mr J W Albarran, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK; john.albarran@uwe.ac.uk How do women experience symptoms before and during myocardial infarction (MI)? Qualitative study. A coronary care unit in Bristol, UK. A purposive sample of 12 women ⩾18 years of age (age range 48–78 y), who had an MI (increase in serum troponin >0.1 ng/l, with or without ST-segment elevation on the electrocardiogram) and were free of discomfort for 24 hours after MI. Exclusion criteria were inability to speak English, clinical instability, and cognitive problems. Women participated in 30–45 minute semi-structured interviews, which addressed their thoughts and perceptions of the onset of their symptoms. The term “chest pain” was not included in any questions unless participants used it. Interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. 3 themes reflected the experiences of women who had an MI. (1) Gradual awareness . Women noticed a series of symptoms in the previous weeks or hours or as part of the acute MI episode. Breathlessness, sometimes associated with physical exertion, was a …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Nursing→Same topicCardiac Health and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→