Regional variation in the management of acute myocardial infarction in the province of Quebec.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that there are differences in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) management in Canada and in the United States. However, there has been little research to evaluate regional variations in AMI treatment and outcomes for Canadian patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether regional variation in the management of AMI in Quebec has an impact on patient mortality and morbidity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Discharge summary and physician claims databases for 76,012 patients with AMI were used between January 1, 1988 and December 31, 1995 to build 16 cohorts for the administrative regions of the province of Quebec. The clinical characteristics, prescription medications, cardiac procedure use, readmissions for cardiac complications and mortality across the different regions were compared. RESULTS: After adjusting for age and sex, discharge prescriptions resulted in the following ranges: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors 34% to 46% of patients, acetylsalicylic acid 49% to 77%, beta-blockers 32% to 54%, calcium channel blockers 25% to 48%, lipid-lowering drugs 4% to 16% and nitrates 76% to 86%. Procedure use varied considerably across the province during the initial 10 days post-AMI (catheterization 3% to 28%; percutaneous coronary intervention 1% to 8%, and coronary artery bypass surgery 0 to 2%), as well as one year after discharge (27% to 47%, 8% to 17%, and 6% to 12%, respectively). Some variation was observed for cardiac complications after one year (unstable angina 9% to 21%; congestive heart failure and recurrent myocardial infarction, no major variation). However, there was no significant regional variation observed for one-year and three-year mortality rates (19% to 22% and 27% to 31%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There was marked regional variation in the rates of discharge prescriptions for cardiac medications and cardiac procedures in patients who have had an AMI in Quebec. These results suggest that the type of treatment received for an AMI depends on the region in which the patient lives. This variation appeared to affect readmission rates for unstable angina, but had no impact on mortality or other cardiac complications post-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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".