Prospective Examination of Anxiety Persistence and Its Relationship to Cardiac Symptoms and Recurrent Cardiac Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current study builds on previous research demonstrating a link between anxiety and inhospital recurrent ischemic and arrhythmic events, by examining the effects of persistent anxiety on recurrent events 1 year later. METHODS: 913 patients with unstable angina (UA) and myocardial infarction (MI) from 12 coronary care units were recruited, and follow-up data were collected at 6 and 12 months after the event. Measures included cardiac symptomatology, healthcare utilization, the anxiety subscale of the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders , the phobic anxiety subscale of the Middlesex Hospital Questionnaire, and the Beck Depression Inventory. RESULTS: Over one third of participants with UA and MI experienced elevated anxiety at the time of the ischemic event, and these symptoms persisted for 1 year in 50% of anxious participants. Although participants with anxiety reported more atypical cardiac symptomatology, the prevalence of typical cardiac symptoms such as chest pain did not differ based on anxiety. After controlling for the severity of the coronary event, family income, sex, diabetes, and smoking, the following variables were significantly predictive of self-reported recurrent cardiac events at 6 months or 1 year: older age, family history of cardiovascular disease, greater depressive symptomatology at baseline, and anxiety at 6 months. Only 38% of anxious patients were asked about such symptoms, indicating underutilization of effective psychotherapeutic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Over and above the effects of depressive symptomatology (among other confounding variables), nonphobic anxiety appears to have a negative effect on self-reported outcome following an ischemic coronary event. Anxiety symptomatology is underrecognized and undertreated, and examination of effects of treatment on secondary prevention must be pursued.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".