Absence of bias against smokers in access to coronary revascularization after cardiac catheterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many consider smoking to be a personal choice for which individuals should be held accountable. We assessed whether there is any evidence of bias against smokers in cardiac care decision-making by determining whether smokers were as likely as non-smokers to undergo revascularization procedures after cardiac catheterization. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. Subjects and setting. All patients undergoing cardiac catheterization in Alberta, Canada. MAIN MEASURE: Patients were categorized as current smokers, former smokers, or never smokers, and then compared for their risk-adjusted likelihood of undergoing revascularization procedures (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting) after cardiac catheterization. RESULTS: Among 20406 patients undergoing catheterization, 25.4% were current smokers at the time of catheterization, 36.6% were former smokers, and 38.0% had never smoked. When compared with never smokers (reference group), the hazard ratio for undergoing any revascularization procedure after catheterization was 0.98 (95% CI 0.93-1.03) for current smokers and 0.98 (0.94-1.03) for former smokers. The hazard ratio for undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting was 1.09 (1.00-1.19) for current smokers and 1.00 (0.93-1.08) for former smokers. For percutaneous coronary intervention, the hazard ratios were 0.93 (0.87-0.99) for current smokers and 1.00 (0.94-1.06) for former smokers. CONCLUSION: Despite potential for discrimination on the basis of smoking status, current and former smokers undergoing cardiac catheterization in Alberta, Canada were as likely to undergo revascularization procedures as catheterization patients who had never smoked.
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 | 0.091 | 0.265 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".