MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 13807: Sex Differences in Patients Characteristics, Risk Factors, and Symptomatology in Older Adults With Pulmonary Embolism: Findings From the SERIOUS-PE Study

2022· article· en· W4380795336 on OpenAlexaff
Behnood Bikdeli, David Jiménez, Gregory Piazza, Alfonso Muriel, Yun Wang, Candrika D. Khairani, Rachel Rosovsky, Olga Madridano, J.B. López‐Sáez, Meritxell Mellado, Ana María Diaz Brasero, Ghazaleh Mehdipoor, Michelle L. O’Donoghue, Primavera A. Spagnolo, Yuan Lu, Laurent Bertoletti, Luciano López-Jiménez, M.J. Núñez-Fernández, Ángeles Blanco‐Molina, Shannon M. Bates, Marie Gerhard‐Herman, Samuel Z. Goldhaber, Manuel Monréal, Harlan M. Krumholz

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Systems and Public Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismInternal medicineDepression (economics)DiseasePediatricsPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Biological sex is linked with pulmonary embolism (PE) disease presentation in young patients, such as the risk incurred by pregnancy. Whether sex differences exist in PE presentation, co-morbidities, risk factors, and symptomatology in older adults, the age group in which most of these events occur, remains unknown. Methods: We identified older adults (aged ≥65 years) with PE in a large international PE registry that is replete with granular clinical information about clinical characteristics and PE symptoms (RIETE registry, 2001-2021). To provide national data from the USA, we assessed sex differences in risk factors and clinical characteristics of US Medicare beneficiaries with PE (2001-2019). Results: The majority of older adults with PE in RIETE (19,294/ 33,462, 57.7%) and in Medicare database (551,492/ 948,823, 58.7%) were women (Panel A). Compared with men, women with PE less frequently had atherosclerotic diseases, obstructive lung disease, cancer, or unprovoked PE, but more frequently had a varicose veins, depression, prolonged immobility, or history of hormonal therapy (P<0.001 for all, Panel B). Compared with men, women less often presented with chest pain (37.3% vs 40.6%) or with hemoptysis (2.4% vs 5.6%), but more often presented with dyspnea (84.6% vs 80.9%) (P<0.001 for all). The proportions of patients with syncope (16.4% vs 15.9%) and patients with simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index >0 (76.3% vs 75.0%) were comparable. Conclusions: In routine practice, elderly women constitute the largest proportion of patients with PE. Sex differences exist in risk factors and clinical presentation of older adults with PE, with cancer and cardiovascular disease being more common in men; and transient provoking factors such as immobility or hormone therapy being more common in women. Whether such differences correlate with disparities in treatment, or differences in short- or long-term clinical outcomes warrant further investigation.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.250
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicHealthcare Systems and Public Health→French-language works237,207→