A Patient-Led Referral Strategy for Cardiovascular Screening of Family and Household Members at the Time of Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Admission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundScreening relatives of patients with ischemic heart disease can identify over half of the population with poorly controlled cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. Family or household members (FMs) may be highly motivated to undergo CV primary prevention screening at the time of their relative’s admission to the Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit (CICU).MethodsPatients aged ≤ 70 years admitted to a tertiary CICU for an acute coronary event were given a letter to refer FMs for CV screening. Interested FMs underwent CV risk-factor assessment and primary prevention counselling. The objectives were to identify FMs with an intermediate or high modified 10-year Framingham risk score (FRS) and to evaluate whether a family-oriented primary prevention strategy improved CV risk.ResultsThere were 51 CV probands who referred 101 FMs (62 family, 39 household; mean age: 44.8 ± 15.3; 65 (64.4%) female) for screening. One-third of FMs aged ≥ 30 years (n = 28 of 84; 32.1%) had a new diagnosis of either hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidemia. Nearly half of FMs (n = 38; 45.2%) had an intermediate or high modified Framingham 10-year CV risk. In FMs aged ≥ 30 years attending the 6-month follow-up (51 of 84; 60.7%), the mean FRS decreased by 4.6% (from 13.2% ± 12.7 to 8.6% ± 10.0, P < 0.001), and 30.4% (7 of 23) of FMs had a low FRS who had initially had an intermediate or high FRS.ConclusionsA patient-led referral strategy at the time of CICU admission led to a high rate of identification of previously undiagnosed CV risk factors in FMs. Implementing a similar referral program on a larger scale could identify a considerable burden of CV risk.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".