Gender differences in the prevalence and treatment of coronary chronic total occlusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gender differences exist in the presentation and outcomes of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Our study objective was to compare gender differences in prevalence, co-morbidities, and revascularization treatment in CAD patients with chronic total occlusions (CTOs). METHODS: A retrospective analysis using the Canadian Multicenter CTO Registry, which included 1,690 consecutive CTO patients identified at coronary angiography and a control group of 7,682 non-CTO patients. RESULTS: The prevalence of women in the CTO group was significantly lower compared to the control group (19% vs. 30%, P < 0.001). Within the overall CTO group, women were significantly older than men (70 ± 12 vs. 66 ± 11 years, P < 0.001) with more comorbidities, including hypertension and heart failure. Rates of PCI in the CTO group were similar between gender (10%), however, women with CTO were treated significantly less by CABG compared to men (19% vs. 27%, P = 0.003). Moreover, compared to male patients, significantly fewer women undergoing CABG had revascularization of the CTO artery (84% vs. 93%, P = 0.03). Multivariable analysis indicated that female gender (along with age, chronic renal failure, prior MI and cerebro-vascular disease) were independent predictors for not receiving CABG treatment for CTO. CONCLUSIONS: Female gender differences exist in CTO patients with both lower prevalence of CTOs at angiography and lower revascularization rates of CTOs by CABG. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 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".