Gender differences in patient-reported outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Women report worse health-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) compared with men following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, this association is not well established when accounting for demographic and clinical patient characteristics at discharge. This knowledge is essential for clinicians when planning individualised care for patients following AMI. The aim of this study is to examine whether gender is associated with health-related PROs at discharge from a Danish heart centre, combining PROs with data from the national health and administrative registries. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cross-sectional study of 2131 patients with AMI discharged from a Danish heart centre responding to the following health-related PRO questionnaires: the Health-survey Short-Form-12 (SF-12), generating a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS) score; the HeartQoL, providing a global, emotional, and physical score; the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and the EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS); the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), generating an anxiety and depression score (HADS-A and HADS-D); the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS); the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ). Patient-reported outcomes were linked to registry-based information adjusting for potential demographic and clinical confounding factors. In adjusted regression models, women reported worse health-related PROs compared with men in SF-12 PCS and SF-12 MCS, HeartQoL global, the HeartQoL emotional and HeartQoL physical score, EQ-5D-5L and EQ VAS, the HADS-A, ESAS, and in six out of eight B-IPQ items. CONCLUSIONS: Women reported worse health-related PROs compared with men. Health-related PROs have the potential to be further investigated to facilitate a more individualised healthcare follow-up after AMI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".