P858Women with stable coronary artery disease have better clinical outcomes than men, but this association is modified by degree of depression: insights from the STABILITY trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Greater understanding of the differences in male and female patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) is needed. Purpose: To describe psychosocial factors, treatments, and outcomes of men versus women with stable CHD, and to explore the association of gender with psychosocial characteristics and cardiovascular risk. Methods: We analyzed the STABILITY trial database, which includes patients with stable CHD and age ≥60 years or another risk factor. Kaplan-Meier event rates of clinical outcomes were compared between men and women. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the relationship between sex and outcomes. Interactions between sex, psychosocial factors, and the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke were tested. Results: Of the 15,828 patients, 2967 (19%) were women. At study entry, 22.4% of women and 11.3% of men were living alone, while 82.4% of women and 64.3% of men were not currently working. Among women, 21.2% felt often/always stressed at home (vs. 9.8% of men), while 19.2% felt often/always sad, low in spirits, or depressed (vs. 10.1% of men). The use of evidence-based medications for CHD, at baseline and at 24 months, was similar among sexes, as well event rates for all outcomes analyzed. In the multivariable model including psychosocial measures, female sex was associated with lower cardiovascular risk. There was a statistically significant interaction such that the lower risk in women varied by degree of depression, whereby women who were more depressed had similar risk as men (Figure).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".