Women with unstable angina received fewer cardiac procedures than did men but were less likely to develop other cardiac events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PrognosisSeptember 1, 2000Women with unstable angina received fewer cardiac procedures than did men but were less likely to develop other cardiac eventsPadma Kaul, MSc, Paul W. Armstrong, MDPadma Kaul, MScUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (P.K., P.W.A.)Search for more papers by this author, Paul W. Armstrong, MDUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (P.K., P.W.A.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJC-2000-133-2-070 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationRoger VL, Farkouh ME, Weston SA, et al. Sex differences in evaluation and outcome of unstable angina. JAMA. 2000 Feb 2;283:646-52. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10665705References1 Armstrong PW, Fu Y, Chang WC, et al. Acute coronary syndromes in the GUSTO-IIb trial: prognostic insights and impact of recurrent ischemia. The GUSTO-IIb Investigators. Circulation. 1998;98:1860-8. Google Scholar2 Iriarte M, Caso R, Murga N, et al. Microvascular angina pectoris in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy and diagnostic value of exercise thallium-201 scintigraphy. Am J Cardiol. 1995;75:335-9. Google Scholar3 Ohman EM, Armstrong PW, Christenson RH, et al. Cardiac troponin T levels for risk stratification in acute myocardial ischemia. GUSTO IIA Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1333-41. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (P.K., P.W.A.) PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails September 1, 2000Volume 133, Issue 2Page: 70KeywordsAdverse eventsAnginaAngiographyBiomarkersCardiac surgeryCohort studiesDiabetes mellitusElectrocardiographyFallsFamilial hypercholesterolemiaHealth care policyHeartHeart failureHypertensionIschemiaMyocardial infarctionPatientsRevascularizationStable coronary artery diseaseUnstable angina ePublished: 9 March 2020 Issue Published: September 1, 2000 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2000 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.003 |
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".