MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 11260: Psychosocial Factors Amongst Women with MINOCA

2021· article· en· W3217660326 on OpenAlexaff
Anaïs Hausvater, Tanya M. Spruill, Ki Park, Nathaniel R. Smilowitz, Binita Shah, Kevin Marzo, Nisha Jhalani, Caitlin Giesler, Laxmi S. Mehta, Bina Ahmed, C. Noel Bairey Merz, Dwithiya Thomas, Jeff Trost, P. N. Mehta, Bryan Har, Kevin R. Bainey, Yuhe Xia, Hua Zhong, Ellen Hada, Judith S. Hochman, Harmony R. Reynolds

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGerontologyLibrary scienceHumanitiesArt historyHistoryArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Women are particularly vulnerable to high stress and depression after myocardial infarction (MI), and both are associated with increased post-MI mortality. MI with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) disproportionately affects women. Little is known about the degree to which stress and depression levels around the time of MI relate to the type of MI in women. We aimed to determine whether psychosocial factors differ between women with MINOCA and those with MI and obstructive CAD (MI-CAD). Methods: Women with MI enrolled in a multicenter study completed baseline measures of perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale [PSS-4]), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-2]), major life stressors (life events checklist [LEC]) and psychological resilience (Brief Resilience Scale [BRS]) at the time of hospitalization for acute MI. PSS-4 and PHQ-2 were repeated at 2-months post-MI. Psychosocial measures were compared between patients with MINOCA and those with MI-CAD at baseline and 2-month follow-up using t-test and chi-square. Results: This study compared 172 MINOCA patients and 314 MI-CAD patients. Women with MINOCA were younger (59.4±12.5 vs 64.2±12.9 years, p<0.001) and less likely to be non-Hispanic white (52.3% vs 64.3%, p=0.004). Women with MINOCA were less likely to have high stress (PSS-4 ≥6) at the time of MI (51.0% vs 63.0% vs, p=0.021) and at 2-months post-MI (32.5% vs 46.3%, p=0.019) compared to women with MI-CAD. There was no difference in the proportion with depressive symptoms (PHQ-2 ≥2) at the time of MI (36.2% MINOCA vs 42.7% MI-CAD, p=0.23) or at 2-months post-MI (39.0% vs 39.5%, P>0.99). MINOCA patients reported fewer major life stressors than MI-CAD patients (LEC 2.67±1.93 vs 3.13±1.80, p=0.015). The frequency of low psychological resilience (BRS<18) (24.3% vs 21.6%, p=0.60) did not differ between MINOCA and MI-CAD patients. Conclusions: Stress and depression are common among women at the time of, and 2-months post-MI. MINOCA patients reported lower stress levels at the time of and following MI compared to MI-CAD patients and fewer traumatic life events, but depressive symptoms and resilience did not differ by MI type.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Health and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→