Predictors of Knowledge of Coronary Intervention in a Group of PCI Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to assess the knowledge of CAD risk factors and post management of coronary intervention among sample of population who were hospitalized for PCI. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted in Cardiology ward of a tertiary care hospital from July 2013 to May 2015 on 600 patients. A structured questionnaire was used to interview the patients. In univariate analysis, t-tests were employed to assess association of knowledge of CAD risk factors with gender, education level and monthly household income. RESULTS: The mean score of participants with no education was 4.42 and patients with education of bachelors or higher was 8.59 (p-value: 0.01). Similarly, the mean score for participants with monthly household income less than 5000 was 3.32 and participants with income higher than 50,000 had a score of 8.31 (p-value: 0.01). Furthermore, only 28% (N=168) claimed aerobic exercise as a key part of angioplasty recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate the lack of good level of knowledge of risk factors for CAD and post management of coronary intervention among PCI patients of Pakistan. There is urgent need for targeted educational programs on national basis to reduce mortality associated with CAD in Pakistani population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".