Traditional risk factors may not explain increased incidence of myocardial infarction in MS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of incident acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the multiple sclerosis (MS) population and a matched population without MS, controlling for traditional vascular risk factors. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study using population-based administrative (health claims) data in 2 Canadian provinces, British Columbia and Manitoba. We identified incident MS cases using a validated case definition. For each case, we identified up to 5 controls without MS matched on age, sex, and region. We compared the incidence of AMI between cohorts using incidence rate ratios (IRR). We used Cox proportional hazards regression to compare the hazard of AMI between cohorts adjusting for sociodemographic factors, diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. We pooled the provincial findings using meta-analysis. RESULTS: We identified 14,565 persons with MS and 72,825 matched controls. The crude incidence of AMI per 100,000 population was 146.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 129.0-163.5) in the MS population and 128.8 (95% CI 121.8-135.8) in the matched population. After age standardization, the incidence of AMI was higher in the MS population than in the matched population (IRR 1.18; 95% CI 1.03-1.36). After adjustment, the hazard of AMI was 60% higher in the MS population than in the matched population (hazard ratio 1.63; 95% CI 1.43-1.87). CONCLUSION: The risk of AMI is elevated in MS, and this risk may not be accounted for by traditional vascular risk factors.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".