Onset and Recurrence of Depression as Predictors of Cardiovascular Prognosis in Depressed Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: A Systematic Review
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: Depression after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is associated with worse cardiac outcomes. This systematic review evaluated whether depressed ACS patients are at differential risk depending on the recurrence and timing of onset of depressive episodes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 11 April 2009. Additionally, reference lists and recent tables of contents of 34 selected journals were manually searched. Eligible studies evaluated cardiovascular outcomes for subgroups of ACS patients with depression or depressive symptoms according to recurrence or onset. RESULTS: Six studies were included that reported outcomes for subgroups of ACS patients with first-ever versus recurrent depression. Four of these reported also outcomes for post-ACS onset versus pre-ACS onset depression, and incident versus nonincident depression. Worse outcomes (odds ratio >1.4) were reported for ACS patients with first-ever depression in 3 of 6 studies (1 study p < 0.05), for patients with post-ACS onset depression in 3 of 4 studies (1 study p < 0.05, but better outcomes in one study) and for patients with incident depression in 2 of 4 studies (no studies p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although it is still suggested that ACS patients with first and new-onset depression are at particularly increased risk of worse prognosis, the inconsistent results from the studies included in this systematic review show that there is no consistent evidence to support such statements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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