Sex differences and their impact on clinical outcome after percutaneous or surgical revascularisation: a report from the Arterial Revascularisation Therapies Study (ARTS).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine whether women have an unfavorable outcome after coronary interventions compared with men, we evaluated patients undergoing revascularisation within the Arterial Revascularisation Therapies Study (ARTS). METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated 1205 patients (23% women) with multivessel disease randomised to percutaneous or surgical coronary revascularisation. The in-hospital results, and clinical outcome at five years were evaluated. Women were older, with a higher prevalence of hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, family history for coronary artery disease (all p<0.001), diabetes mellitus (p=0.05) and stable angina (p<0.05) than men, but had a lower incidence of history of myocardial infarction or smoking (both p<0.001). More major bleeding complications, even after adjusting for baseline clinical characteristics (OR 29.4, 95% CI: 5.3-500, p<0.005) were observed in women following percutaneous coronary intervention. During clinical follow-up freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was similar in men and women, regardless of treatment strategy. Men assigned to bypass surgery had a better quality of life, but women reported more frequently angina. CONCLUSION: The clinical outcome of women with multivessel disease undergoing coronary revascularisation was similar to that in men. However, women presented more bleeding complications before hospital discharge, and had less favourable assessment in specific domain of daily life at follow-up.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".