Many patients with coronary heart disease believed that stress and lifestyle factors caused their illnessCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
F Astin Dr F Astin, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; f.astin@leeds.ac.uk What are the beliefs of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) about the cause of their illness? Framework analysis. 3 general hospitals in West Yorkshire, UK. 65 patients 40–83 years of age (mean age 63 y, 55% men, 69% South Asian) who were admitted to hospital with unstable angina or myocardial infarction or for coronary artery bypass surgery. Patients with terminal illness, severe mental illness, or drug or alcohol addictions were excluded. Patients were interviewed within the first year of discharge. Questions addressed their experiences and beliefs about their condition, information provided after diagnosis, lifestyle modification, and the role of family members in providing support. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analysed for themes. Patients with CHD had various explanations for the cause of their illness and a lack of understanding about appropriate lifestyle changes. (1) Family history . Patients who believed that family history or genetics caused their CHD felt that lifestyle changes would not have prevented CHD. Others could not identify specific …
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".