Sex and Gender Differences in Ischemic Heart Disease: Endocrine Vascular Disease Approach (EVA) Study Design
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improvements in ischemic heart disease (IHD) management have been unbalanced between sexes, with coronary microvascular dysfunction considered the likely underlying reason. The Endocrine Vascular disease Approach (EVA) is an observational study (Clinicaltrial.gov NCT02737982) aiming to assess sex and gender interactions between coronary circulation, sexual hormones, and platelet function. Consecutive patients with IHD undergoing coronary angiography will be recruited: (1) to assess sex and gender differences in angiographic reperfusion indexes; (2) to evaluate the effects of estrogen/androgen on sex-related differences in myocardial ischemia; (3) to investigate the platelet biology differences between men and women with IHD; (4) to verify sex- and gender-driven interplay between response to percutaneous coronary intervention, platelets, sex hormones, and myocardial damage at baseline and its impact on 12-month outcomes. The integration of sex and gender in this translational project on IHD will contribute to the identification of new targets for further innovative clinical interventions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it