Sex differences in the outcomes of peripheral arterial disease: a population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of sex in the outcomes of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) has been poorly studied. We sought to investigate differences in the long-term adverse cardiovascular and limb outcomes between men and women with PAD. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study with up to 7 years of follow-up using linked administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. Patients aged 40 years or older who visited a vascular surgeon between Apr. 1, 2004, and Mar. 31, 2007 (index date), and carried a diagnosis of PAD comprised the study cohort. The primary outcome was a composite of death or hospital admission for stroke or myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes included lower limb amputation or revascularization. We used Cox proportional hazards modelling to compute unadjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and HRs adjusted for baseline covariates. RESULTS: A total of 6915 patients were studied, of whom 2461 (35.6%) were women. No significant differences in the risk of the primary outcome were observed between men and women (adjusted HR 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.05]). Women were less likely than men to undergo minor amputation (adjusted HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.62-0.85]) and arterial bypass surgery (adjusted HR 0.82 [95% CI 0.71-0.94]) but were more likely to be admitted to hospital for acute myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 1.15 [95% CI 1.00-1.31]). There were no sex differences in the rates of major amputation or transluminal percutaneous angioplasty. INTERPRETATION: We identified no significant differences in the composite risk of major adverse cardiovascular events between women and men with PAD, although our findings suggest men may be at increased risk for adverse limb events compared with women. Cardiovascular health campaigns should focus on both women and men to promote early diagnosis and management of PAD.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".