MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052528511 · doi:10.1097/hjr.0b013e328300b717

Usefulness of a single-item general self-rated health question to predict mortality 12 months after an acute coronary syndrome

2008· article· en· W2052528511 on OpenAlexaff
Brett D. Thombs, Roy C. Ziegelstein, Donna E. Stewart, Susan Abbey, Kapil Parakh, Sherry L. Grace

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkMcGill UniversityYork UniversityUniversity of TorontoJewish General Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalOdds ratioAcute coronary syndromeLogistic regressionInternal medicineCohort studyCohortCardiologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A single-item general self-rated health (GSRH) question consistently predicts mortality in community cohort studies, but has not been examined in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We investigated whether a single-item GSRH question predicted mortality 12 months post-discharge in 800 ACS patients. METHODS: Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of the single-item GSRH question with mortality, controlling for cardiac risk factors, including depressive symptoms. RESULTS: The single-item GSHR question was associated with mortality on a bivariable basis (odds ratio=0.50, 95% confidence interval=0.28-0.92, P=0.027), but was not significant after controlling for other risk factors (odds ratio=0.80, 95% confidence interval=0.40-1.60, P=0.522).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & RehabilitationSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207