Sex differences in heart disease prevalence among individuals with spinal cord injury: A population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT/OBJECTIVE: The risk for cardiovascular disease is amplified following spinal cord injury, but whether risk differs between the sexes remains unknown. Here, we evaluated sex differences in the prevalence of heart disease among individuals with spinal cord injury, and compared sex differences with able-bodied individuals. DESIGN: The design was a cross-sectional study. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted, using inverse probability weighting to account for the sampling method and to adjust for confounders. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals who participated in the national Canadian Community Health Survey. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported heart disease. RESULTS: Among 354 individuals with spinal cord injury, the weighted prevalence of self-reported heart disease was 22.9% in males and 8.7% in females, with an inverse-probability weighted odds ratio of 3.44 (95% CI 1.70-6.95) for males versus females. Among 60,605 able-bodied individuals, the prevalence of self-reported heart disease was 5.8% in males and 4.0% in females, with an inverse probability weighted odds ratio of 1.62 (95% CI 1.50-1.75) for males versus females. The effect of male sex on increasing heart disease prevalence was about two times higher among individuals with spinal cord injury than able-bodied individuals (relative difference in inverse probability weighted odds ratios = 2.12, 95% CI 1.08-4.51). CONCLUSION: Males with spinal cord injury exhibit a significantly higher prevalence of heart disease, compared with females with spinal cord injury. Moreover, relative to able-bodied individuals, spinal cord injury amplifies sex-related differences in heart disease. Overall, this work will inform targeted cardiovascular prevention strategies, and may also inform a better understanding of cardiovascular disease progression in both able-bodied and individuals with spinal cord injury.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".