MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114026611 · doi:10.20333/2500136-2020-6-90-96

Gender features of clinical course and outcomes of acute coronary syndrome with segment rise

2020· article· en· W3114026611 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Н. В. Ларева, A.S. Kurupanova

Bibliographic record

VenueSiberian medical review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Systems and Public Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute coronary syndromeInternal medicineCardiogenic shockCardiologyAnxietyMyocardial infarctionCoronary artery disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the research is to study clinical, hemodynamic, affective disorders in ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (STEACS); to identify gender risk factors affecting the outcomes. Material and methods. The study included 90 males and 90 females with ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. All patients underwent echocardiography, coronary angiography (CAG), and a set of laboratory examinations. Spielberger test, CES-D scales, Morisky-Green test, and Montreal Cognitive Function Scale were uses to study psycho-emotional status of 75 males and females. The treatment was carried out in accordance with current clinical protocols, clinical guidelines and standards. The prognosis was assessed in a year. The results were processed using nonparametric statistics methods. Results. It was revealed that the females, included in the study, were older than males; they more often suffered from coronary artery disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, constitutive obesity (before the index event); they more regularly underwent antihypertensive therapy; they more often reached target BP values. There were no differences in features of coronary anatomy, frequency of invasive treatment, but females were significantly more likely to undergo thrombolytic therapy. Males smoked more often; asked for medical help earlier from the onset of anginal syndrome; they were more susceptible to dilatation of the left ventricular cavity. Females more often than males had high and medium level of personal anxiety, as well as high level of situational anxiety. Predictors of worsening prognosis in females are 4-vascular lesion of coronary bed, cardiogenic shock upon admission, decreased hemoglobin, dilatation of the left atrium, decreased cognitive functions, smoking. In males the predictors are: 3-vascular damage, cardiogenic shock, renal failure. Conclusion. It was found that in STEACS there are differences between males and females in several clinical, anatomical and functional characteristics. Risk factors for an unfavorable prognosis are gender specific. The revealed facts can be useful in individualized treatment, rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSiberian medical reviewSame topicHealthcare Systems and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207