MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2780512299 · doi:10.1037/hea0000602

Relationship between antidepressant therapy and risk for cardiovascular events in patients with and without cardiovascular disease.

2018· article· en· W2780512299 on OpenAlexafffund
Kim Lavoie, Nicola J. Paine, Roxanne Pelletier, André Arsenault, Jean G. Diodati, Tavis S. Campbell, Louise Pilote, Simon Bacon

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalConcordia UniversityUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMaceHazard ratioDepression (economics)AntidepressantInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionBeck Depression InventoryRisk factorPhysical therapyPsychiatryConfidence intervalAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The American Heart Association has endorsed depression as a cardiac risk factor and recommends screening as part of routine practice. This has been met with controversy due to inconsistencies in the data linking depression treatment to better cardiovascular outcomes. Our objective was to prospectively assess the association between depression treatment (defined as being prescribed antidepressant medication) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients referred for exercise stress tests. METHOD: Two thousand three hundred eighty-five consecutive patients presenting for myocardial perfusion exercise stress tests underwent a sociodemographic, medical, and psychiatric interview (Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders [PRIME-MD]) and completed the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). History of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and antidepressant use was self-reported and verified via chart review. Participants followed over an 8.8-year follow up, and information regarding MACE incidence (including cardiac mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, revascularization procedures, cerebrovascular events) was obtained from provincial administrative databases. RESULTS: 8% (n = 190) of the sample were taking antidepressants at baseline, 41% (n = 916) had a history of CVD, and 38.7% (n = 921) had depression according to the PRIME-MD or BDI. Antidepressant treatment was associated with a 30% reduced risk of MACE (Hazard ratio [HR] = 0.697; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.504, 0.964]; p = .029). A 46% reduction in risk was associated with antidepressant treatment among those without CVD (HR = 0.542; 95% CI [0.299, 0.981]; p = .043). In depressed patients, a 33% reduction in risk of MACE associated with antidepressant use was seen (adjusted HR = 0.674; 95% CI [0.440, 1.033]; p = .07). CONCLUSIONS: Antidepressants may be cardio-protective among patients presenting for stress testing independent of risk factors including CVD and depression. Results support treating depression with antidepressants in this population to reduce risk of MACE. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PsychologySame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207