Sex differences in non-obstructive coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ischaemic heart disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in both women and men. Compared with men, symptomatic women who are suspected of having myocardial ischaemia are more likely to have no obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) on coronary angiography. Coronary vasomotor disorders and coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) have been increasingly recognized as important contributors to angina and adverse outcomes in patients with no obstructive CAD. CMD from functional and structural abnormalities in the microvasculature is associated with adverse cardiac events and mortality in both sexes. Women may be particularly susceptible to vasomotor disorders and CMD due to unique factors such as inflammation, mental stress, autonomic, and neuroendocrine dysfunction, which predispose to endothelial dysfunction and CMD. CMD can be detected with coronary reactivity testing and non-invasive imaging modalities; however, it remains underdiagnosed. This review focuses on sex differences in presentation, pathophysiologic risk factors, diagnostic testing, and prognosis of CMD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".