MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291884111 · doi:10.14740/cr1398

Soccer and Risk of Cardiovascular Events

2022· article· en· W4291884111 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Juan Enrique Puche

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHostilityDyslipidemiaAnxietyIncidence (geometry)Acute coronary syndromeInternal medicinePhysical therapyDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesCardiologyObesityMyocardial infarctionPsychiatryClinical psychologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Physical and emotional stress have been associated with an increased incidence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Sporting events such as soccer matches can cause spectators to experience cardiovascular events. The objective of the present study was to determine whether an association of this type existed during a Spanish league competition. Methods: We recorded data from patients who were admitted with ACS during 2018 - 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: those who were admitted on the day the local team played and those who were admitted on nonmatch days. We determined various cardiovascular risk factors, including the degree of hostility and anxiety. Results: Away wins reduced the number of admissions with ACS by 30%, whereas a local loss increased hospitalizations by more than 30%. The profile of patient admitted on match days was a > 65 years old man, smoker (current or past), obese, with worse control of his hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia, poor pharmacological adherence and high anxiety and hostility scores. Conclusions: A loss by the local team increases the number of admissions with ACS in males with a high burden of cardiovascular risk factors. Primary prevention measures should be taken to reduce the frequency of these events.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.349 · 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.

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207