MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981718707 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz746.0050

5191Recurrent coronary heart disease in the year following myocardial infarction among US men and women between 2008 and 2015

2019· article· en· W2981718707 on OpenAlexaff
Sanne A. E. Peters, Lisandro D. Colantonio, Hong Zhao, Vera Bittner, Michael E. Farkouh, Paul J. Dluzniewski, Bharat Poudel, Paul Muntner, Mark Woodward

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Systems and Public Health
Canadian institutionsHeart and Stroke FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionHazard ratioConfidence intervalInternal medicineHeart failureProportional hazards modelDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Although the risk of recurrent events among adults with coronary heart disease (CHD) has declined considerably from the 1970's in the US and many Western countries, studies from the 2000's show that rates remain high. Women have lower rates of incident CHD but little is known about sex differences in recurrent events in adults with CHD. Purpose To examine trends in rates of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), recurrent CHD, and all-cause mortality following a MI hospitalization between 2008 and 2015 among US men and women. Also, we compared sex differences in event rates among individuals with a MI hospitalization versus their counterparts without a history of CHD. Methods Data were used from 1,232,024 (53% women) US adults <65 years of age with commercial health insurance in the MarketScan database and US adults ≥66 years of age with government health insurance through Medicare who had a MI hospitalization between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2015. For each calendar year, age-standardized sex-specific rates of recurrent MI, recurrent CHD (i.e., recurrent MI or coronary revascularization), and all-cause mortality (in Medicare only) were calculated through 365 days following the hospital discharge date for MI. In a secondary analyses, we assessed the rate of recurrent MI, CHD events and all-cause mortality among women versus men with a history of MI (n=324,283) and without a history of CHD (n=1,297,132) in 2014–2015. For these analyses, adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were calculated using follow-up through December 31, 2016. Results From 2008 to 2015, age-standardized rates over 365 days of follow-up for recurrent MI declined by 15%, from 94 to 80 per 1000 person-years, in men and by 14%, from 89 to 77 per 1000 person-years, in women. Age-standardized recurrent CHD rates decreased by 16%, from 163 to 138 per 1000 person-years, in men and by 17%, from 142 to 118 per 1000 person-years, in women. In the Medicare population, age-standardized all-cause mortality rates following MI decreased by 6%, from 446 to 421 per 1000 person-years, in men and by 3%, from 412 to 398 per 1000 person-years, in women. In the secondary analyses, the women-to-men hazard ratios for those with a history of MI and those without prior CHD were 0.97 (0.94–0.99) and 0.67 (0.65–0.69), respectively, for MI, 0.89 (0.87–0.91) and 0.52 (0.51–0.54), respectively, for CHD, and 0.84 (0.83–0.85) and 0.74 (0.73–0.75) respectively, for all-cause mortality. Conclusion Reductions in rates of recurrent MI, recurrent CHD, and all-cause mortality within 365 days after hospitalization for MI have been similar for US women and men. The lower risk for events comparing women versus men without prior CHD is attenuated after a MI. Acknowledgement/Funding The design and conduct of the study was supported through a research grant from Amgen, Inc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicHealthcare Systems and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207