MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resting Heart Rate and Metabolic Syndrome in Patients With Diabetes and Coronary Artery Disease in Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) Trial

2010· article· en· W2066721608 on OpenAlexaff
Jamal S. Rana, Regina M. Hardison, Rodica Pop‐Busui, Maria M. Brooks, Teresa L.Z. Jones, Richard W. Nesto, Martial G. Bourassa

Bibliographic record

VenuePreventive Cardiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart rate and cardiovascular health
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusCoronary artery diseaseRevascularizationAngioplastyMetabolic syndromeEjection fractionType 2 diabetesPopulationCoronary artery bypass surgeryArteryMyocardial infarctionHeart failureObesityEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relation between the metabolic syndrome (MetS) and resting heart rate (rHR) in patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease is unknown. The authors examined the cross-sectional association at baseline between components of the MetS and rHR and between rHR and left ventricular ejection fraction in the population from the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) randomized clinical trial. The mean rHR in the MetS group was significantly higher than in those without (68.4+/-12.3 vs 65.6+/-11.8 beats per min, P=.0017). The rHR was higher (P<.001 for trend) with increasing number of components for MetS. Linear regression analyses demonstrated that as compared to individuals without MetS, rHR was significantly higher in participants with MetS (regression coefficient, 2.9; P=.0015). In patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease, the presence of higher rHR is associated with increasing number of criteria of MetS and the presence of ventricular dysfunction.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreventive CardiologySame topicHeart rate and cardiovascular healthFrench-language works237,207