MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981769619 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz748.0047

1347The flu vaccine and mortality in hypertension. A Danish nationwide cohort study

2019· article· en· W2981769619 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Modin, Brian Claggett, M. E. Joergensen, L Koeber, Thomas Benfield, Morten Schou, Jens‐Ulrik Stæhr Jensen, Scott D. Solomon, Ramona Trebbien, Michael Fralick, Orly Vardeny, Marc A. Pfeffer, Christian Torp‐Pedersen, Gunnar Gislason, T Biering-Soerensen

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeStroke (engine)Internal medicineMyocardial infarctionDiabetes mellitusVaccinationAtrial fibrillationHeart failureInfluenza vaccineCohort studyCause of deathDiseaseImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Influenza infection is associated with an increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke. It is currently unknown whether influenza vaccination may reduce mortality in patients with hypertension. Purpose To determine whether influenza vaccination is associated with lower risks of death in hypertensive patients without significant cardiovascular or other chronic disease. Methods Using nationwide registers, we identified all patients with hypertension in Denmark during 9 consecutive influenza seasons in the period 2007–2016 who were treated with at least 2 different classes of antihypertensive medication (beta-blockers, diuretics, calcium antagonists or renin-angiotensin system inhibitors). Patients who were not 18–100 years old or had ischemic heart disease, heart failure, chronic obstructive lung disease, cancer or cerebrovascular disease were excluded. Prior to each influenza season we assessed the exposure to influenza vaccination. End-points were death from all causes, from AMI or stroke, or cardiovascular death. For each season, patients were followed from December 1 until April 1 the next year, spanning the period of high influenza activity in Denmark. Results A total of 608,452 Patients were followed for a median of 5 seasons (interquartile-range: 2–8 seasons), with total follow-up time of 975,902 person-years. The vaccine coverage during study seasons ranged from 26% to 36%. During follow-up, 21,571 patients died of all-causes (3.5%), 12,270 patients died of cardiovascular causes (2.0%) and 3,846 patients died of AMI/stroke (0.6%). Vaccination was associated with older age, Diabetes Mellitus, atrial fibrillation, lower educational level, lower income and higher medication use. In unadjusted analysis considering all seasons, vaccination was significantly associated with increased risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death and death from AMI/stroke. However, following adjustment for season, age, sex, comorbidities, medications, income, education, and more, vaccination was significantly associated with reduced risks of all-cause death, cardiovascular death and death from AMI/stroke (Figure). PY, person-years. Conclusion In a nationwide study spanning 9 consecutive influenza seasons including more than 600,000 hypertensive patients without significant cardiovascular disease identified through medication use, influenza vaccination was significantly associated with a reduced risk of death from all-causes, cardiovascular causes and AMI/stroke. Influenza vaccination may improve patient outcome in hypertension. Acknowledgement/Funding Daniel Modin was supported by the Herlev & Gentofte University Hospital Internal Research Fund and by the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

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)0.001
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207