MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209081455 · doi:10.1016/j.xjtc.2021.10.035

Commentary: Coronary artery disease: Equality of care for women and men

2021· letter· en· W3209081455 on OpenAlexafffund
Teresa M. Kieser

Bibliographic record

VenueJTCVS Techniques · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseDiseaseArteryBypass graftingInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Central MessageWomen and men might be different physically but are equally vital in our social structure; they both deserve equal consideration and treatment specific to their needs.See Article page 122. Women and men might be different physically but are equally vital in our social structure; they both deserve equal consideration and treatment specific to their needs. See Article page 122. Zwischenberger and colleagues,1Zwischenberger B.A. Jawitz O.K. Lawton J.S. Coronary surgery in women: how can we improve outcomes.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Tech. 2021; 10: 122-128Google Scholar in their Invited Expert Opinion on "Coronary Surgery in Women: How Can We Improve Outcomes", have addressed head-on deficiencies in the management of coronary artery disease (CAD) in women. The research done for this article is compelling. Understandably, there is frustration for all who treat women with coronary disease. Women are different from men and as a group have been documented to have fewer single/bilateral internal mammary and radial arterial grafts. However, because women present later in life with overt CAD, perhaps there is reluctance to use arterial grafting in older patients be they male or female. A study/review, that would compare rates of arterial grafting in men and women older than 70 years would perhaps unmask one reasonable difference of the arterial grafting rate of women versus men. The "Algorithm of Use of Arterial Grafts in Women" is not necessary; this is an algorithm for both men and women who require coronary surgery. Except for reducing/ceasing hormonal replacement in postmenopausal women, the guidelines are the same. The truth might be that if an age modifier does not exist to explain fewer arterial grafts in women, lower thresholds may be present for excusing arterial grafting (ie, guidelines are less adhered-to in women). If so, the "mindset" toward CAD in women might need adjustment. But "mindsets" are not solely responsible: women have fragile tissues, coronary arteries are smaller, and because of delayed diagnosis, disease might be more advanced. In addition, women are ultimate givers, and may be so devoted to their loved ones as to present late, putting their own health at risk to continue serving their family. Also, the diagnosis of CAD in women can be frustrating and difficult: Dr Gerald M. FitzGibbon of the "A,B,O graft patency classification" fame used to say: "The antechamber of hell is interpreting ECGs of women and hell itself is interpreting their stress EKGs." Presenting symptoms of women with CAD may be varied and may not follow the classical 'chest tightness, radiation to the left arm' symptom complex, contributing to delayed or inaccurate diagnosis of CAD. The concept of "the innovative idea of surgeon and patient gender concordance" is disturbing. Suggesting a specialty of only women surgeons operating on women for coronary surgery is a slippery slope and tantamount to cobblers fixing only left-sided shoes. Although well-meaning, the overall tone that women might be better cared for by women physicians and surgeons suggests bias toward men. One must be careful to avoid the pendulum swing. Also playing this forward, how might women surgeons feel if men decide to have only men operating on men? Segregating the problem is not a solution. Instead, perhaps women could be given the choice of male or female surgeons. This is not to say that there exists no bias regarding fewer arterial grafts for women; bias is often unconscious and stems from generational beliefs of designated roles for men and women, passed on for centuries. Also, not all individuals are as open-minded to change as others. Men and women might be different physically but are equally vital in our social structure; they deserve equal consideration and treatment specific to their needs. Acknowledging differences is only the first step; action must follow to augment care for women. The words, "woman" and "women" have the words "man" and "men" within them. Women and Men are like coins with 2 different sides—similar but "the sides" are different. Vive la difference! Coronary surgery in women: How can we improve outcomesJTCVS TechniquesVol. 10PreviewThis Invited Expert Opinion is based on the presentation by Dr Jennifer Lawton at the 2021 American Association for Thoracic Surgery Meeting, International Coronary Congress Session. In this opinion, we consider the factors that contribute to the differences in outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between women and men to provide strategies to optimize outcomes in women. Full-Text PDF Open Access

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJTCVS TechniquesSame topicCardiovascular Issues in PregnancyFrench-language works237,207