Infarct size, left ventricular function, and prognosis in women compared to men after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results from an individual patient-level pooled analysis of 10 randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Studies have reported less favourable outcomes in women compared with men after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Whether sex-specific differences in the magnitude or prognostic impact of infarct size or post-infarction cardiac function explain this finding is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled patient-level data from 10 randomized primary PCI trials in which infarct size was measured within 1 month (median 4 days) by either cardiac magnetic resonance imaging or technetium-99m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography. We assessed the association between sex, infarct size, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and the composite rate of death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization within 1 year. Of 2632 patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, 587 (22.3%) were women. Women were older than men and had a longer delay between symptom onset and reperfusion. Infarct size did not significantly differ between women and men, and women had higher LVEF. Nonetheless, women had a higher 1-year rate of death or HF hospitalization compared to men, and while infarct size was a strong independent predictor of 1-year death or HF hospitalization (P < 0.0001), no interaction was present between sex and infarct size or LVEF on the risk of death or HF hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale, individual patient-level pooled analysis of patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, women had a higher 1-year rate of death or HF hospitalization compared to men, a finding not explained by sex-specific differences in the magnitude or prognostic impact of infarct size or by differences in post-infarction cardiac function.
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 | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".