MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2386717144

The Clinical Analysis of Anxiety Depression in Cardiovascular Patients

2004· article· en· W2386717144 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shui‐Ping Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Medical Theory and Practice · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDepression (economics)AnxietyAntidepressantBlood pressureAnginaInternal medicineDiseaseCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyPsychiatryMyocardial infarction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective:To study the clinical characteristics and treatment of anxiety depression in car diovascular patients. Methods:The clinical data about 1047 cases of cardiovascular patients with anxiety depression were retrospectively reviewe d. Result: 13 4 percent of cardiovascular patients was complicated w ith anxiety depression. The main symptoms were similar to angina pectoris and to left heart failure. The patients might occur arrhythmias. The hypertension comp licated with anxiety depression were poor tolerance to blood pressure elevating and in these patients the proportion of patients with the blood pressure circadi an lost was higher. They responded badly to only using cardiovascular drugs trea tment and additional administration of antianxiety and antidepressant drugs was effective. Conclusion: The anxiety depression is common in cardiovas cular patients. It is important to pay more attention to identify the symptoms o f anxiety depression, which is similar to cardiac disease. The administration of cardiovascular drugs adding antianxiety and antidepressant drugs is safe and ef fective in treatment of cardiovascular patients with anxiety depression.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.398 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Medical Theory and Practice→Same topicCardiac Health and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→