Review: psychological interventions do not reduce all cause or cardiac mortality in coronary heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rees K, Bennett P, West R, et al . Psychological interventions for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(2):CD002902. Q In patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), do psychological interventions (PSIs), particularly stress management training (SMT), reduce mortality and morbidity and improve psychological wellbeing? ### ![Graphic][1] Data sources: Cochrane Controlled Trials register (Issue 4, 2001), Medline (1999–2001), EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (1998–2001), PsycINFO, and CINAHL (up to 2001); bibliographies of relevant articles; and experts. ### ![Graphic][2] Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (published in any language) that lasted ⩾6 months and compared non-pharmacological PSIs with usual care or no intervention in adults with CHD. ### ![Graphic][3] Outcomes: all cause and CHD related mortality; myocardial infarction (MI); revascularisation (coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty); and anxiety and depression (each measured using several different … [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif
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 | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".