Gender differences in use of invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for acute ischaemic heart disease in Chinese adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate gender differences in the use of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for acute ischaemic heart disease (IHD) in Chinese adults and assess whether socioeconomic or health system factors contribute to such differences. METHODS: In 2004-2008, the China Kadoorie Biobank recruited 512 726 adults from 10 diverse areas in China. Data for 38 928 first hospitalisations with IHD (2911 acute myocardial infarction (AMI), 9817 angina and 26 200 other IHD) were obtained by electronic linkage to health insurance records until 31 December 2016. Multivariate Poisson regression models were used to estimate women-to-men rate ratios (RRs) of having cardiac enzyme tests, coronary angiography and coronary revascularisation. RESULTS: Among the 38 928 individuals (61% women) with IHD admissions, women were less likely to have AMI (5% vs 12%), but more likely to have angina (26% vs 24%) or other IHD (69% vs 64%). For admissions with AMI, there were no differences in the use of cardiac enzymes between women and men (RR=1.00; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.03), but women had lower use of coronary angiography (0.80, 0.68 to 0.93) and coronary revascularisation (0.85, 0.74 to 0.99). For angina, the corresponding RRs were: 0.97 (0.94 to 1.00), 0.66 (0.59 to 0.74) and 0.56 (0.47 to 0.67), respectively; while for other IHD, they were 0.97 (0.94 to 1.00), 0.87 (0.76 to 0.99) and 0.61 (0.51 to 0.73), respectively. Adjusting for socioeconomic and health system factors did not significantly alter the women-to-men RRs. CONCLUSIONS: Among Chinese adults hospitalised with acute IHD, women were less likely than men to have coronary angiography and revascularisation, but socioeconomic and health system factors did not contribute to these differences.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".