MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 7: Patient and Physician Discordance in Reporting Symptoms of Angina: Insights from the Angina Prevalence and Provider Evaluation of Angina Relief (APPEAR) Study

2015· article· en· W2197481447 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Shafiq, Faraz Kureshi, Suzanne V. Arnold, Kensey Gosch, Tracie Breeding, Philip G. Jones, John A. Spertus

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnginaCoronary artery diseaseInternal medicineOutpatient clinicCardiologyCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyPhysical therapyEmergency medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Eradication/minimization of angina is a primary therapeutic goal in the management of stable coronary artery disease (CAD). However, eliciting the presence/frequency of patients’ angina can be challenging, particularly in a busy outpatient clinic. We independently measured and compared patients’ and physicians’ assessments of the frequency of angina in US outpatient cardiology practices. Methods: From the ACC NCDR PINNACLE registry, we identified 23 practices and conducted a cross-sectional study of patients with stable CAD. Using the SAQ Angina Frequency (AF) scale, patients’ angina was categorized as daily/weekly (SAQ AF Score <60), monthly (SAQ AF Score=60-99) and none (SAQ AF Score=100). Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement between physicians’ and patients’ reported angina. Results: Among 1153 outpatients with stable CAD from 23 cardiology clinics, 8% reported daily/weekly, 24% monthly and 68% no angina. When patients reported daily/weekly, monthly or no angina symptoms, physicians agreed 70%, 16% and 94% of the time respectively, with physicians reporting no angina a quarter of the time in patients with weekly or greater angina (Figure). Agreement between patients and physician reports, as determined with a Kappa Statistic, was 0.41 (95% CI=0.36, 0.44) Conclusion: There was discordance between patient and physician reports of angina, especially among patients who reported having infrequent angina over the past 4 weeks. Moreover, physicians reported no angina among 1 of 4 patients having daily/weekly symptoms. Improving the communication between patients and physicians about the presence of angina may improve patients’ treatment and outcomes. These results support recent proposals to include patient-reported outcomes measures in routine clinical care, which may support better recognition, by physicians, of patients’ symptoms and improve treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207