MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199632291 · doi:10.1161/jaha.121.021638

Treatment Effect of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Men Versus Women With ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction

2021· article· en· W3199632291 on OpenAlexaff
Samian Sulaiman, Akram Kawsara, Mohamed O. Mohamed, Harriette G.C. Van Spall, Nadia R. Sutton, David R. Holmes, Mamas A. Mamas, Mohamad Alkhouli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineOdds ratioPropensity score matchingCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Women are less likely to receive primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) than men. A potential reason is risk aversion because of the worse outcomes with pPCI among women. However, whether pPCI is associated with a comparable mortality benefit in men and women remains unknown. Methods and Results We selected patients admitted with a principal diagnosis of ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction in the National Inpatient Sample (2016–2018). We used propensity‐score matching to calculate average treatment effects of pPCI for in‐hospital mortality, major complications, length of stay, and cost. As a sensitivity analysis, we used logit models followed by a marginal command to calculate the average marginal effect. We included 413 500 weighted hospitalizations (30.7% women, 69.3% men). Women had more comorbidities except smoking and prior sternotomy. Compared with men, women were less likely to undergo angiography (81.0% versus 87.0%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74–0.81; P <0.001) or pPCI (74.0% versus 82.0%; adjusted OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73–0.79; P <0.001). There were no significant differences in average treatment effects of pPCI on mortality between men (−8.4% [−9.3% to −7.6%], P <0.001), and women (−9.5% [−10.8% to −8.3%], P <0.001) ( P interaction=0.16). This persisted in age‐stratified analyses (≥85, 65–84, 45–64, <45 years) and sensitivity analysis, excluding emergent admissions. The average treatment effects of pPCI on major complications were comparable except for acute stroke, leaving against medical advice, and palliative encounter. There were no differences in the average treatment effects of pPCI on length of stay, but the proportional increase in cost with pPCI was higher in women. Conclusions pPCI results in a comparable reduction in in‐hospital mortality in men and women. Nonetheless, risk‐adjusted rates of pPCI remain lower in women in contemporary US practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207