MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Is There a Sex Gap in Surviving an Acute Coronary Syndrome or Subsequent Development of Heart Failure?

2020· article· en· W3106891312 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin A. Ezekowitz, Anamaria Savu, Robert C. Welsh, Finlay A. McAlister, Shaun G. Goodman, Padma Kaul

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR CentreSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureAcute coronary syndromeCardiologyInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: We hypothesized that disparities between sexes in the management of myocardial infarction (MI) may have changed over time, and thus altered the prognoses after MI, especially the risk for the development of heart failure. Methods: Using a large population-based cohort of patients with MI between April 1, 2002, and March 31, 2016, we examined the incidence, angiographic findings, treatment (including revascularization), and clinical outcomes of patients with a first-time MI. To elucidate the differences between sexes, a series of multivariable models were created to explore all MI and non–ST-segment–elevation MI (NSTEMI) versus ST-segment–elevation MI (STEMI) over time. Results: Between 2002 and 2016, 45 064 patients (13 878 [30.8%] women) were hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of first-time MI (54.9% NSTEMI and 45.1% STEMI). Women were older (median age, 72 versus 61 years), had more comorbidities, and had lower rates of diagnostic angiography than did men (women, 74%, versus men, 87%). When angiography was performed, women had a lower proportion of left main, 2-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending or 3-vessel disease compared with men (33.4% versus 40.9%, P <0.0001), and a higher frequency of 1-vessel disease or nonobstructive coronary artery disease (39.6% versus 29.1%, P <0.0001). Women had a higher unadjusted rate of in-hospital mortality than did men in both patients with STEMI (women, 9.4%, versus men, 4.5%) and patients with NSTEMI (women, 4.7%, versus men, 2.9%). After adjustment, this difference remained significant in STEMI (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.24–1.64]) but not in NSTEMI (adjusted odds ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.83–1.13]). After discharge, women developed heart failure after STEMI (women, 22.5%, versus men, 14.9%) as well as after NSTEMI (women, 23.2%, versus men, 15.7%). The adjusted relative risk for women versus men of developing the outcomes of mortality and heart failure remained similar across years, although the differences were nonsignificantly attenuated over 5 years of follow-up. Conclusions: Although some attenuation of differences in clinical outcomes over time has occurred, women remain at higher risk than men of dying or developing heart failure in the subsequent 5 years after STEMI or NSTEMI, even after accounting for differences in angiographic findings, revascularization, and other confounders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations84
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207