Psychiatric morbidity and the presence and absence of angiographic coronary disease in patients with chest pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess psychiatric morbidity in coronary angiogram patients. Method: A psychiatric assessment of 200 consecutive chest‐pain patients was performed the day before coronary angiography in a double‐blind study design. The sample included 132 men (mean age 57.2 years, SD 9.5) and 68 women (mean age 59.8 years, SD 8.9). A Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐III‐R was used to obtain psychiatric diagnosis. The 21‐item Beck Depression Inventory, the 20‐item Toronto Alexithymia Scale and a four‐item Life Satisfaction Scale were used to assess mental symptoms. A coronary angiography with obstruction of a coronary artery by more than 50% was considered to indicate angiographic coronary disease. Results: Mental disorders were found in 28% (95% CI 14–41) of the patients with normal angiographic findings ( n =47) and in 24% (95% CI 17 – 30) of the patients with angiographic coronary disease ( n =153). Furthermore, no difference was found between these two groups in other rating scales assessing mental symptoms even when adjusted for the New York Heart Association class, duration of chest‐pain symptoms or exercise capacity. Conclusion: Psychiatric morbidity may not be associated with angiographic findings in patients with chest pain.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".