Risk of Acute Myocardial Infarction After the Death of a Significant Person in One's Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute psychological stress is associated with an abrupt increase in the risk of cardiovascular events. Intense grief in the days after the death of a significant person may trigger the onset of acute myocardial infarction (MI), but this relationship has not been systematically studied. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a case-crossover analysis of 1985 participants from the multicenter Determinants of Myocardial Infarction Onset Study interviewed during index hospitalization for an acute MI between 1989 and 1994. We compared the observed number of deaths in the days preceding MI symptom onset with its expected frequency based on each patient's control information, defined as the occurrence of deaths in the period from 1 to 6 months before infarction. Among the 1985 subjects, 270 (13.6%) experienced the loss of a significant person in the prior 6 months, including 19 within 1 day of their MI. The incidence rate of acute MI onset was elevated 21.1-fold (95% confidence interval, 13.1-34.1) within 24 hours of the death of a significant person and declined steadily on each subsequent day. The absolute risk of MI within 1 week of the death of a significant person is 1 excess MI per 1394 exposed individuals at low (5%) 10-year MI risk and 1 per 320 among individuals at high (20%) 10-year risk. CONCLUSIONS: Grief over the death of a significant person was associated with an acutely increased risk of MI in the subsequent days. The impact may be greatest among individuals at high cardiovascular risk.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".