MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362692097 · doi:10.1161/jaha.122.027092

Role of Resilience in the Psychological Recovery of Women With Acute Myocardial Infarction

2023· article· en· W4362692097 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Milla Arabadjian, Zoe T. Duberstein, Sarah H Sperber, Kiranjot Kaur, Jolaade Kalinowski, Yuhe Xia, Anaïs Hausvater, Olivia O'Hare, Nathaniel R. Smilowitz, Victoria Vaughan Dickson, Judy Zhong, Jeffrey S. Berger, Judith S. Hochman, Harmony R. Reynolds, Tanya M. Spruill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineDepression (economics)Psychological resilienceLongitudinal studyMyocardial infarctionDemographicsClinical psychologyCohortDemographyInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Psychological well-being is important among individuals with myocardial infarction (MI) given the clear links between stress, depression, and adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Stress and depressive disorders are more prevalent in women than men after MI. Resilience may protect against stress and depressive disorders after a traumatic event. Longitudinal data are lacking in populations post MI. We examined the role of resilience in the psychological recovery of women post MI, over time. Methods and Results We analyzed a sample from a longitudinal observational multicenter study (United States, Canada) of women post MI, between 2016 and 2020. Perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale-4 [PSS-4]) and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-2 [PHQ-2]) were assessed at baseline (time of MI) and 2 months post MI. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and resilience (Brief Resilience Scale [BRS]) were collected at baseline. Low and normal/high resilience groups were established as per published cutoffs (BRS scores <3 or ≥3). Mixed-effects modeling was used to examine associations between resilience and psychological recovery over 2 months. The sample included 449 women, mean (SD) age, 62.2 (13.2) years, of whom 61.1% identified as non-Hispanic White, 18.5% as non-Hispanic Black, and 15.4% as Hispanic/Latina. Twenty-three percent had low resilience. The low resilience group had significantly higher PSS-4 and PHQ-2 scores than the normal/high resilience group at all time points. In adjusted models, both groups showed a decrease in PSS-4 scores over time. Conclusions In a diverse cohort of women post MI, higher resilience is associated with better psychological recovery over time. Future work should focus on developing strategies to strengthen resilience and improve psychological well-being for women with MI. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02905357; Unique identifier: NCT02905357.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207