Acute myocardial infarction in Alberta: temporal changes in outcomes, 1994 to 1999.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current survival trends in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are not known. A population-based study using administrative data to examine the short and long term survival of patients after AMI in Alberta between 1994 and 1999 was conducted. METHODS: AMI patients were identified from hospital discharge data. Temporal changes in the adjusted (age, sex, AMI anatomical location and comorbidities) fatality rate were analyzed in 19,928 AMI patients. RESULTS: The age- and sex-adjusted incidence of hospitalization for AMI in Alberta significantly declined from 169.6 per 100,000 population in 1994 to 160.8 per 100,000 in 1999 (P=0.03). The risk-adjusted in-hospital case fatality rate from all causes was 11.4% (95% CI 10.6% to 12.3%) in 1994 versus 9.2% (8.4% to 10.1%) in 1999; the 30-day case fatality rate was 12.6% (11.7% to 13.6%) in 1994 versus 10.1% (9.1% to 11.0%) in 1999; and the one-year case fatality rate was 19.0% (17.8% to 20.1%) in 1994 versus 14.9% (13.8% to 16.0%) in 1999. The percentage of hospitalized AMI patients who underwent coronary angiography within one year after admission rose from 48.2% in 1994 to 52.4% in 1999; percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty increased from 25.5% to 35.0% and coronary artery bypass surgery increased from 9.7% to 12.6%. Prescriptions for pharmacological drugs at discharge increased from 1994 to 1999 among patients aged 65 and older: from 29.5% in 1994 to 41.0% in 1999 for beta-blockers, from 5.2% to 18.7% for lipid lowering agents and from 14.0% to 20.5% for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. INTERPRETATION: There was a modest improvement in patient survival after AMI between 1994 and 1999. The improvements may be associated with increasing use of revascularization and pharmacological therapy provided in the management of AMI.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".