Risk of Myocardial Infarction in Canadian Patients with Psoriasis: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that psoriatic patients are at increased risk for myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. There is a lack of data on MI risk in Canadian psoriatic patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare MI risk in Canadian psoriatic patients to that in control patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using Quebec's health insurance database (2005-2010) comparing MI risk in psoriatic patients to that in matched controls. Severe psoriasis was defined as any diagnosed psoriatic patient who used phototherapy or oral or injectable psoriasis treatments. Adjustments were made for several MI risk factors. RESULTS: There were 31,421 patients in the psoriasis population, of which 5,159 had severe psoriasis. The unadjusted MI incidence rate per 1,000 person-years was 4.88 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.50-5.20), 5.58 (95% CI 5.10-6.10), and 5.32 (95% CI 4.40-6.40) for the control and mild and severe psoriasis groups, respectively. After adjustments, the hazard ratio of MI was significantly higher for psoriatic patients than for controls (1.17; 95% CI 1.04-1.31). The hazard ratio was also significantly higher than for controls in the mild psoriasis group (1.18; 95% CI 1.05-1.33) but not in the severe psoriasis group (1.16; 95% CI 0.94-1.42). CONCLUSION: The relative MI risk is higher for Canadian psoriatic patients than for controls.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".