MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605563888 · doi:10.1089/jwh.2016.5984

Cardiac Medication Use in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Nonobstructive Coronary Artery Disease

2017· article· en· W2605563888 on OpenAlexaffabout
Falisha Adatia, Shannon Galway, Maja Grubisić, May Lee, Patrick Daniele, Karin H. Humphries, Tara Sedlak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Women s Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseInternal medicineCardiologyMyocardial infarctionOdds ratioAngiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) have an elevated cardiac event rate, suggesting that these patients may benefit from cardiac medication. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the rates of cardiac medication use 3 months before angiography and 3 months following clinically indicated angiography for MI in patients with no CAD, nonobstructive CAD, and obstructive CAD. We also examined the sex differences in cardiac medication use 3 months following angiography in patients by extent of angiographic CAD. METHODS: We studied patients ≥20 years old with MI undergoing coronary angiography in British Columbia, Canada, from January 1, 2008, to March 31, 2010 (n = 3,841). No CAD, nonobstructive CAD, and obstructive CAD were defined as 0%, 1% to 49%, and ≥50% luminal narrowing in any epicardial coronary artery, respectively. Medication use, 3 months before and 3 months following angiography, was obtained through British Columbia PharmaNet for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), beta-blockers, statins, and antiplatelet agents. Optimal medical therapy (OMT) was defined as filled prescriptions for all three: ACE-Is/ARBs, beta-blockers, and statins. RESULTS: Following angiography, in all medication categories except CCBs, patients with no CAD and nonobstructive CAD had significantly lower rates of prescriptions filled than patients with obstructive CAD (all p < 0.001). After adjusting for age and prior medication use, patients with nonobstructive CAD were still less likely to receive these medications than patients with obstructive CAD, including OMT with an odds ratio = 0.25 (95% confidence interval: 0.18-0.36). There were no significant sex differences in medication use 3 months postangiography. CONCLUSIONS: In post-MI patients, medication use following angiography is significantly lower in nonobstructive CAD than obstructive CAD at 3 months. While sex was not an independent predictor of medication use 3 months post-catheterization, future studies should explore methods of improving medication use in both females and males with nonobstructive CAD post-MI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Women s HealthSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207