Psychologic Distress in Postmyocardial Infarction Patients Who Have Returned to Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of psychologic distress in women and men returning to work after a myocardial infarction (MI) and to compare this prevalence with the prevalence observed among men and women of the general working population. METHODS: The study population was composed of 990 post-MI patients (106 women and 884 men) recruited in 30 hospitals who had returned to work after their first MI. Psychologic distress was measured with the French version of the Psychiatric Symptom Index (PSI). Adjusted mean PSI score and prevalence of psychologic distress were compared with those observed in 8829 other workers (3823 women and 5006 men), representative of the general working population. RESULTS: Mean PSI score was higher in post-MI women (30.3) than in post-MI men (20.3). This score was also higher in the post-MI population than in the general working population, both for women (30.3 compared with 17.0) and men (20.3 compared with 14.1). Psychologic distress was more prevalent in post-MI women than in post-MI men (prevalence ratio [PR], 1.62; confidence interval [CI], 1.27-2.07). This score was also higher in post-MI women and post-MI men than in the general working population (PR, 2.18; CI, 1.75-2.71 and 1.76; CI, 1.48-2.08, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among the presumably fittest post-MI patients, namely those who had returned to work, psychologic distress was significantly more prevalent than in the general working population, particularly among women. Further research is needed to shed light on prognosis in post-MI workers experiencing psychologic distress and on adequate intervention before and after their return to work.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".