Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in developed countries. Gender has a significant influence on the cause, clinical manifestation and prognosis of CHD. Men develop CHD approximately 10 to 15 years earlier than women. Non-modifiable CHD risk factors such as age and family history have a different effect in men than in women. Modifiable risk factors also show differences between the sexes. Smoking is more prevalent and hypertension less controlled in men. Overweight and obesity appear to be more potent risk factors in men, and the higher prevalence of abdominal obesity in men increases their risk for CHD. According to some studies this could explain gender differences in the incidence of CHD but women’s significant protection against CHD during their reproductive years could be another explanation. Myocardial infarction is usually the first manifestation of CHD in men and the risk of its recurrence is twice as high in men as in women. A robust database provides evidence that routine thorough cardiovascular risk assessment in men over 40 years of age and in postmenopausal females is a prudent procedure. Lifestyle changes and timely and aggressive therapy for lipid disorders, hypertension and diabetes mellitus can improve the prognosis of high-risk patients.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".