A 30-Year Perspective (1975–2005) Into the Changing Landscape of Patients Hospitalized With Initial Acute Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of lifestyle changes and evolving treatment practices on coronary disease incidence rates, demographic and clinical profile, and the short-term outcomes of patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction have not been well characterized. The purpose of this study was to examine multidecade-long trends (1975-2005) in the incidence rates, demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment practices, and hospital outcomes of patients hospitalized with an initial acute myocardial infarction from a population-based perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: Residents of the Worcester, Mass, metropolitan area (median age, 37 years; 89% white) hospitalized with an initial acute myocardial infarction (n=8898) at all greater-Worcester medical centers during 15 annual periods between 1975 and 2005 comprised the sample of interest. The incidence rates of initial acute myocardial infarction were lower in 2005 (209 of 100,000 population) than in 1975 (277 of 100,000), although these trends varied inconsistently over time. Patients hospitalized during the most recent study years were significantly older (mean age, 64 years in 1975; 71 years in 2005), more likely to be women (38% in 1975; 48% in 2005), and have a greater prevalence of comorbidities. Hospitalized patients were increasingly more likely to receive effective cardiac medications and coronary interventional procedures for the period under investigation. Hospital survival rates improved significantly over time (81% survived in 1975; 91% survived in 2005), although varying trends were observed in the occurrence of clinically important complications. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this community-wide investigation provide insight into the changing magnitude, characteristics, management practices, and outcomes of patients hospitalized with a first myocardial infarction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".