Influence of Racial Disparities in Procedure Use on Functional Status Outcomes Among Patients With Coronary Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although black cardiac patients receive fewer revascularization procedures than whites, it is unclear whether this has a detrimental impact on outcomes. The objective of our study was to compare 6-month functional status and angina outcomes among blacks and whites with documented coronary disease and to assess whether differential use of revascularization procedures affects these outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified a prospective cohort of 1534 white and 337 black patients undergoing cardiac catheterization between August 1998 and April 2001. Health status was assessed at baseline and 6 months with the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey and the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) Angina Frequency Scale. Compared with whites, blacks received fewer coronary revascularization procedures (52.5% versus 66.0%; P<0.01). By 6 months, blacks had similar mortality (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.9) but worse scores in 5 SF-36 domains (physical, social, role physical, role emotional, and mental health function). Blacks also reported higher rates of angina at 6 months than whites (34.2% versus 24.6%; P<0.01). After adjustment for baseline functional status and clinical and demographic variables, blacks had significantly worse summary physical component scores, summary mental component scores, and SAQ Angina Frequency Scale scores. However, differences in physical component summary scores and SAQ scores between blacks and whites were no longer significant after adjustment for revascularization status. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is among the first to document greater symptoms and functional impairment among black cardiac patients relative to whites. Differential use of coronary revascularization may contribute to the poorer functional outcomes observed among black patients with documented coronary disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".