Treatment of ischaemic heart disease and stroke in individuals with psychosis under universal healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most data on the quality of vascular care for individuals with psychiatric conditions come from countries without universal healthcare. AIMS: To investigate the treatment of people with psychosis admitted for ischaemic heart disease or stroke under universal healthcare. METHOD: A population-based study of administrative data comparing Canadians with and without a history of schizophrenia or related psychosis (n = 65,039). RESULTS: Of 49 248 admissions for ischaemic heart disease, 1285 had a history of psychosis. Despite a higher 1-year mortality, they were less likely to receive guideline-consistent treatment: e.g. coronary artery bypass grafting (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI 0.25-0.48), beta-blockers (adjusted OR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.95) and statins (adjusted OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.41-0.63). Of 15 791 admissions for stroke, 594 had a history of psychosis. Despite higher 1-year mortality rates, they were less likely to receive cerebrovascular arteriography or warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: People with a history of psychosis do not receive equitable levels of vascular care under universal healthcare.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".