Clinical Factors Explain Differences in Frequency of Cardiac Procedures between Men and Women after Cardiac Catheterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summaries for Patients21 May 2002Clinical Factors Explain Differences in Frequency of Cardiac Procedures between Men and Women after Cardiac CatheterizationSearch for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-136-10-200205210-00002 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail What is the problem and what is known about it so far?Studies have shown that men get more tests and treatments for heart disease than do women. Possible explanations for these differences are that men may have more severe disease than women or that prejudice may lead doctors to offer more tests and treatments to men than to women. Cardiac catheterization is a test in which doctors inject dye into a patient's circulatory system to look for blockages in heart blood vessels and for poor heart function. Options for treating patients with blocked heart blood vessels include medication or ... Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: The summary below is from the full report titled “Sex Differences in Access to Coronary Revascularization after Cardiac Catheterization: Importance of Detailed Clinical Data.” It is in the 21 May 2002 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine (volume 136, pages 723-732). The authors are WA Ghali, PD Faris, PD Galbraith, CM Norris, MJ Curtis, LD Saunders, V Dzavik, LB Mitchell, and ML Knudtson, for the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) Investigators.Summaries for Patients are a service provided by Annals to help patients better understand the complicated and often mystifying language of modern medicine.Summaries for Patients are presented for informational purposes only. These summaries are not a substitute for advice from your own medical provider. If you have questions about this material, or need medical advice about your own health or situation, please contact your physician. The summaries may be reproduced for not-for-profit educational purposes only. Any other uses must be approved by the American College of Physicians–American Society of Internal Medicine. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoSex Differences in Access to Coronary Revascularization after Cardiac Catheterization: Importance of Detailed Clinical Data William A. Ghali , Peter D. Faris , P. Diane Galbraith , Colleen M. Norris , Michael J. Curtis , L. Duncan Saunders , Vladimir Dzavik , L. Brent Mitchell , Merril L. Knudtson , and Metrics 21 May 2002Volume 136, Issue 10Page: I-40KeywordsBlood vesselsCardiac surgeryCardiovascular therapyCatheterizationCoronary revascularizationGeographic areasHeartHeart diseasesLongitudinal studiesRevascularization ePublished: 21 May 2002 Issue Published: 21 May 2002 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2002 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".