Disparities in management and outcomes of myocardial infarction in multiple sclerosis: A matched cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although multiple sclerosis (MS) confers an elevated risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), little is known about how it influences management of AMI. METHODS: Using population-based administrative (health) data from two Canadian provinces, we conducted a retrospective matched cohort study. We identified people with MS who had an incident AMI, and up to five AMI controls without MS matched on age, sex, and region. We compared the likelihood of undergoing cardiac catheterization within 30 days of AMI, time to revascularization, use of recommended pharmacotherapy post-AMI, and mortality at 30 and 365 days post-AMI using multivariable regression models adjusting for potential confounders. We pooled findings across provinces using meta-analysis. RESULTS: We identified 559 MS cases and 2523 matched controls. In the matched cohort, the MS cohort was less likely to undergo cardiac catheterization within 30 days of admission (odds ratio (OR) = 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.49-0.77), revascularization (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.69-0.88), or to fill a prescription for recommended therapy. Mortality risk was higher in the MS cohort than in the matched cohort at 30 and 365 days post-AMI. CONCLUSION: Rates of diagnostic and therapeutic care, and survival after AMI were lower in the MS population than in a matched population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".