Self-reported health and adverse outcomes among women living with symptoms of angina or unspecific chest pain but no diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease—findings from the DenHeart study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The objectives were to describe differences in self-reported health at discharge between women diagnosed with angina or unspecific chest pain and investigate the association between self-reported health and adverse outcomes within 3 years. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from a national cohort study were used, including data from the DenHeart survey combined with 3 years of register-based follow-up. The population included two groups of women with symptoms of angina but no diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease at discharge (women with angina and women with unspecific chest pain). Self-reported health measured with validated instruments was combined with register-based follow-up on adverse outcomes (a composite of unplanned cardiac readmissions, revascularization, or all-cause mortality). Associations between self-reported health and time to first adverse outcomes were investigated with Cox proportional hazard models, reported as hazards ratios with 95% confidence intervals. In total, 1770 women completed the questionnaire (49%). Women with angina (n = 931) reported significantly worse self-reported health on several outcomes compared to women with unspecific chest pain (n = 839). Within the 3 years follow-up, women with angina were more often readmitted (29 vs. 23%, P = 0.011) and more underwent revascularization (10 vs. 1%, P < 0.001), whereas mortality rates were similar (4 vs. 4%, P = 0.750). Self-reported health (physical and mental) was associated with adverse outcomes between both groups (on most instruments). CONCLUSION: Women with angina reported significantly worse self-reported health on most instruments compared to women with unspecific chest pain. Adverse outcomes varied between groups, with women diagnosed with angina experiencing more events. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01926145).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".