193 Poster can Sex Differences in HRQOL Outcomes be Attributed to Gender Roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased recognition of significant sex and/or gender differences in health related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes and the implications for clinical practice and service delivery has led to calls for more gender sensitivity and specificity in research endeavors as well as clinical practice guidelines. Previous investigations by our group have time and again identified important sex differences in both changes in HRQOL from baseline to one year and, HRQOL outcomes of patients treated for CAD where women were observed to report poorer HRQOL measurement (HSM) when compared with men. Taking into consideration that the data had been adjusted for all known cardiac-related risk factors including recognized cardiac related psychosocial variables (depression, anxiety, and social support), we postulate that the persistent sex differences in HRQOL may be attributed to social factors such as gender roles. Recognizing the limitations of our data, (sex is defined as participants identifying themselves as male or female) we created a ‘conceptual or phantom’ variable for gender-role and used a structural equation modeling strategy to test our notion that gender-role which in this model is influenced by a respondent's biological sex, may have an effect on the noted sex differences we are finding in the HRQOL outcomes of patients with CAD.HRQOL data were collected on 2233 patients one-year following index catheterization. The results indicated that the model fit was substantially improved by the addition of the conceptualized gender-role variable. Furthermore there was a significant effect going from gender-role to QOL (−0.106, P < 0.05). Age, coronary anatomy, ejection fraction, physical limitation, anginal frequency, and gender variables in this model were able to explain 51% of the variance of HRQOL. In particular, reported physical limitations, angina frequency, and gender had large significant direct effects on HRQOL. While a substantial amount of literature has examined the correlations between gender-role attributes and a wide variety of both positive and negative outcomes, this area has not been explored in patients with cardiovascular disease. The result of this study suggests further study of the influence of gender role (using a gender role measurement) on HRQOL concept is needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".