MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210804071 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-05713-x

Construction of a femininity score in the UK Biobank and its association with angina diagnosis prior to myocardial infarction

2022· article· en· W4210804071 on OpenAlexafffund
Anna Levinsson, Simon de Denus, Johanna Sandoval, Louis‐Philippe Lemieux Perreault, Joëlle Rouleau, Jean‐Claude Tardif, Julie Hussin, Marie‐Pierre Dubé

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityMontreal Heart Institute
FundersMedical Research CouncilFondation Institut de Cardiologie de MontréalUniversité de MontréalMitacsAstraZenecaCanada Research ChairsBritish Heart FoundationMolson FoundationInstitut de Cardiologie de MontréalPfizer
KeywordsBiobankMyocardial infarctionAnginaAssociation (psychology)MedicineInternal medicineCardiologyFemininityPsychologyBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gender captures social components beyond biological sex and can add valuable insight to health studies in populations. However, assessment of gender typically relies on questionnaires which may not be available. The aim of this study is to construct a gender metric using available variables in the UK Biobank and to apply it to the study of angina diagnosis. Proxy variables for femininity characteristics were identified in the UK Biobank and regressed on sex to construct a composite femininity score (FS) validated using tenfold cross-validation. The FS was assessed as a predictor of angina diagnosis before incident myocardial infarction (MI) events. The FS was derived for 315,937 UK Biobank participants. In 3059 individuals with no history of MI at study entry who had an incident MI event, the FS was a significant predictor of angina diagnosis prior to MI (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10-1.39, P < 0.001) with a significant sex-by-FS interaction effect (P = 0.003). The FS was positively associated with angina diagnosis prior to MI in men (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19-1.57, P < 0.001), but not in women. We have provided a new tool to conduct gender-sensitive analyses in observational studies, and applied it to study of angina diagnosis prior to MI.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207