Prevalence and incidence of ischemic heart disease in multiple sclerosis: A population-based validation study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies suggest an altered risk of ischemic heart disease (IHD) in multiple sclerosis (MS), but data are limited. We aimed to validate and apply administrative case definitions to estimate the incidence and prevalence of IHD in MS. METHODS: Using administrative data we identified persons with incident MS (MSPOP) and a matched general population (GPOP) cohort. We developed case definitions for IHD using ICD-9/10 codes and prescription claims, compared them to medical records, then applied them to evaluate the incidence and prevalence of IHD. RESULTS: Agreement between medical records and the administrative definition using ≥1 hospital or ≥2 physician claims over 5 years was moderate (kappa=0.66; 95% CI: 0.42-0.90). In 2005, the age-standardized prevalence of IHD was 6.77% (95% CI: 5.48-8.07%) in the MSPOP and 6.11% (95% CI: 5.56-6.66%) in the GPOP. The prevalence of IHD was higher in the MSPOP than the GPOP among persons aged 20-44 years (prevalence ratio 1.87; 95% CI: 1.65-2.12) and aged 45-59 years (prevalence ratio 1.21; 95% CI: 1.08-1.35). The incidence of IHD was also higher in the MSPOP (incidence rate ratio 1.24; 95% CI: 0.97-1.59). CONCLUSIONS: More than 5% of the MSPOP has IHD. The incidence of IHD was higher than expected in persons aged <60 years. Further evaluation of this issue is warranted.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it