Factors associated with actively working in the very long-term following acute coronary syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Returning to work after an episode of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is challenging for many patients, and has both personal and social impacts. There are limited data regarding the working status in the very long-term after ACS. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 1,632 patients who were working prior to hospitalization for ACS in a quaternary hospital and were followed-up for up to 17 years. Adjusted models were developed to analyze the variables independently associated with actively working at the last contact, and a prognostic predictive index for not working at follow-up was developed. RESULTS: The following variables were significantly and independently associated with actively working at the last contact: age>median (hazard-ratio [HR], 0.76, p<0.001); male sex (HR, 1.52, p<0.001); government health insurance (HR, 1.36, p<0.001); history of angina (HR, 0.69, p<0.001) or myocardial infarction (MI) (HR, 0.76, p=0.005); smoking (HR, 0.81, p=0.015); ST-elevation MI (HR, 0.81, p=0.021); anterior-wall MI (HR, 0.75, p=0.001); non-primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (HR, 0.77, p=0.002); fibrinolysis (HR, 0.61, p<0.001); cardiogenic shock (HR, 0.60, p=0.023); statin (HR, 3.01, p<0.001), beta-blocker (HR, 1.26, p=0.020), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) (HR, 1.37, p=0.001) at hospital discharge; and MI at follow-up (HR, 0.72, p=0.001). The probability of not working at the last contact ranged from 24.2% for patients with no variables, up to 80% for patients with six or more variables. CONCLUSIONS: In patients discharged after ACS, prior and in-hospital clinical variables, as well as the quality of care at discharge, have a great impact on the long-term probability of actively working.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".