Biorhythm Theory Does Not Predict Admission for Acute Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Temporal variations in the incidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have been described. However, AMI occurrence and biorhythm theory, which proposes the existence of three endogenous independent infradian cycles and AMI occurrence, has not been well studied. The purpose of this study is to determine whether specific days in the biorhythm cycles are related to AMI incidence. MEASURES: Patients (40-85 years old) admitted for AMI at the Sherbrooke University Hospital Center, 1993-2008 were subjects of this study. Potential vulnerable days and performance days of the biorhythm cycles were calculated using birth and admission dates from the warehouse database. Observed AMI frequencies were compared to those expected using χ² tests. RESULTS: There were 11,395 admissions for AMI. No relation was noted between single, double, or triple critical or noncritical days and AMI (χ² = 3.78; p > 0.05). Observed and expected AMI frequencies for maximal and minimal performance days were similar (χ² = 15.06; p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for a possible relationship between the date of AMI and critical maximum and minimum performance days of an individual's physical, emotional, or intellectual biorhythm cycles. We conclude that biorhythm theory does not predict admission for AMI.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".