Angina in Coronary Artery Disease Patients With and Without Diabetes: <scp>US</scp> National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001–2010
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Angina pectoris (AP) is common in coronary artery disease (CAD), but whether those with diabetes mellitus (DM) experience AP as often as those without DM is unclear. HYPOTHESIS: AP prevalence is similar in those with vs without DM in a community sample with CAD. METHODS: In adults with CAD in the US NHANES 2001-2010, AP was determined by self-report and Rose questionnaire and compared by DM status. Physical functioning and medication use were also evaluated. RESULTS: Of 1957 adults with CAD, 619 (28.2%) had DM. Prevalence of AP was similar in those with vs without DM (48.9% vs 46.3%; P = 0.38). There was a trend toward more severe AP in those with glycated hemoglobin ≥7% (50.4%) vs <7% (27.1%; P = 0.09). Adjusted logistic regression showed a similar odds of AP (1.06, 95% CI: 0.84-1.33) in those with vs without DM, although among DM, a 2-fold greater odds of AP in women vs men. Physical functioning was worse in those with vs without AP overall (score of 25.9 vs 24.3; P < 0.001) and further diminished within those with comorbid DM (26.7 vs 24.0; P < 0.001). Among those with AP, those with vs without DM were more likely on β-blockers, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: AP in CAD patients is similar among those with vs without DM, despite greater use of evidence-based therapies in DM patients. Greater physical limitations exist in those with vs without AP, and further diminish with comorbid DM.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it