Long-term cardiovascular consequences of Rose angina at age 20–54 years: 29-years’ follow-up of the Tromsø Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Rose Angina Questionnaire (RAQ) was constructed in the 1960s for assessing the population burden of angina. Studies have found that screening positivity by RAQ conferred an elevated risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). It is, however, not clear to what extent Rose angina represents early CHD in relatively young adults who are free of known CHD. If representing CHD, Rose angina is expected to carry prognostic information in addition to the risk conferred by other risk factors. METHODS: The Tromsø Study is a population-based cohort study in Northern Norway. All men aged 20-54 years (n=8238) and women aged 20-49 years (n=8001), free of known cardiovascular disease (CVD), who participated in a survey 1979-1980, were followed throughout 2010 for incident myocardial infarction (MI), and for incident MI or stroke used as proxy for incident CVD. HRs were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model. RESULTS: In age-adjusted analyses, Rose angina predicted MI and CVD in both sexes. The excess risk was substantially accounted for by CVD risk factors, leaving no significantly elevated MI risk above the risk explained by these factors (adjusted HR 1.31; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80 in men, HR 1.20; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.10 in women). A similar pattern was seen for CVD (adjusted HR 1.16; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.55 in men and 1.30; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.06 in women). CONCLUSIONS: Rose angina predicted MI and CVD in a 29-years' follow-up of a relatively young population. Established CVD risk factors were important mediators.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".