Adjusted prognostic association of depression following myocardial infarction with mortality and cardiovascular events: individual patient data meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between depression after myocardial infarction and increased risk of mortality and cardiac morbidity may be due to cardiac disease severity. AIMS: To combine original data from studies on the association between post-infarction depression and prognosis into one database, and to investigate to what extent such depression predicts prognosis independently of disease severity. METHOD: An individual patient data meta-analysis of studies was conducted using multilevel, multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Sixteen studies participated, creating a database of 10 175 post-infarction cases. Hazard ratios for post-infarction depression were 1.32 (95% CI 1.26-1.38, P<0.001) for all-cause mortality and 1.19 (95% CI 1.14-1.24, P<0.001) for cardiovascular events. Hazard ratios adjusted for disease severity were attenuated by 28% and 25% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The association between depression following myocardial infarction and prognosis is attenuated after adjustment for cardiac disease severity. Still, depression remains independently associated with prognosis, with a 22% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 13% increased risk of cardiovascular events per standard deviation in depression z-score.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it