Knowledge of “Heart Attack” Symptoms in a Canadian Urban Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundTemporal delays in myocardial infarction (MI) treatment have been addressed through patient and physician education, innovations in prehospital fibrinolysis, and improvements to emergency medical services, yet the most significant contributor to delayed treatment is the patient's ability to recognize and respond to symptoms.PurposeTo determine whether public health education campaigns have achieved their desired reach by ensuring that all segments of the population recognize the symptoms of MI (“heart attack”).Methods976 men and women, 40+ years of age, randomly selected from Metro Vancouver, Canada completed a telephone survey in English, Punjabi, Mandarin, or Cantonese. Respondents' knowledge of MI symptoms was assessed; 10 “correct symptoms” were considered to be: chest pain/pressure/tightness/discomfort, arm pain, shortness of breath, nausea/indigestion, sweating/clamminess, shoulder/back pain, dizziness/faintness/light headedness, jaw pain, weakness, and uneasiness/panic/anxiety.Results3.2% of the sample could not identify any correct symptoms and 53.3% were able to describe 3+ symptoms. Significant associations were found between the number of correct symptoms and gender, ethnicity, education, exposure to health professional counseling, and worry about having a heart attack. The least number of correct symptoms were reported by: men (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.87; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.81-0.95), Chinese-Canadian participants (IRR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.65-0.83; relative to European-Canadian born participants), those with less than high school education (IRR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.66-0.92; relative to those with more than high school), those with no health professional counseling (IRR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.84-1.00), and those who did not worry “at all” about having a heart attack (IRR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.80-0.98; relative to those who worried sometimes/often/almost all the time).ConclusionsThe participants were not well informed about the symptoms of heart attack. It will be challenging to educate the public sufficiently to reduce the time between the onset of symptoms and initiation of treatment for MI.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".