MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049281389 · doi:10.1089/jwh.2004.13.695

Does Hormonal Status Influence the Clinical Presentation of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Women?

2004· article· en· W2049281389 on OpenAlexaff
Julié M. Thot, Bettina A. Hamelin, Peter Bogaty, Marie Arsenault, Sylvain Planté, Paul Poirier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Women s Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHormonePresentation (obstetrics)MedicineInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePhysiologyObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that the clinical presentation of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) may differ between women and men. It is not known if different clinical presentations may be explained by hormonal status in women with ACS. Our objective was to compare the clinical presentation of ACS between premenopausal (PRE) women and post-menopausal women with hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and without (POST). METHODS: This was a prospective study of consecutive women admitted with a diagnosis of ACS (myocardial infarction [MI] or unstable angina). All women answered a detailed questionnaire that included a list of 27 clinical symptoms. Symptom results were adjusted for age and current coronary event diagnosis. RESULTS: Seventy-three Caucasian women were studied. No differences were found in terms of the frequency of reported typical symptoms of ACS between PRE (n = 23), HRT (n = 32), and POST (n = 18). However, PRE more often reported atypical chest symptoms than HRT and POST women (57% vs. 31% vs. 22%, PRE vs. HRT vs. POST, respectively, p = 0.05). HRT and POST women experienced substernal chest pain more frequently than PRE (44% vs. 78% vs. 83%, p = 0.03). In contrast, PRE more frequently tended to experience chest pressure (57% vs. 31% vs. 39%, p = 0.2) or chest pain in other locations (22% vs. 3% vs. 6%, p = 0.06). HRT and POST groups reported more frequent indigestion-like pain/discomfort (22% vs. 50% vs. 56%, p = 0.04) and midback pain (35% vs. 63% vs. 72%, p = 0.04) during ACS compared with PRE women. POST experienced sudden fatigue more frequently than PRE and HRT (61% vs. 53% vs. 89%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that almost all women admitted with ACS experienced typical chest symptoms but frequently reported both typical and atypical symptoms. Independently of age, atypical chest symptoms occurred more frequently in premenopausal women than in postmenopausal women with or without HRT.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Women s HealthSame topicMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207