Hypothesis 2. Depression increases the risk for coronary heart disease in established diabetes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clouse RE, Lustman PJ, Freedland KE, Griffith LS, McGill JB, Carney RM: Depression and coronary heart disease in women with diabetes. Psychosom Med 65:376–383, 2003 Prospective population-based studies demonstrate that, among individuals without known coronary heart disease (CHD), those who are depressed are more likely to have a myocardial infarction (MI) or die from cardiovascular disease than those without depression.12 Clouse et al. hypothesized that depression plays a similar role in the clinical presentation of CHD in individuals with diabetes. Women were selected as the focus of their study because of the high prevalence and aggressive course of CHD in women with diabetes. The study involved 76 women who composed the female subset of participants recruited and interviewed in 1982 for a study of the interrelationship of diabetes and psychiatric illness. The mean age of the subjects was 41.3 years, with a mean duration of diabetes of 12.4 years. Both type 1 (44.7%) and type 2 (55.3%) diabetic patients were enrolled. The majority …
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.003 |
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".