Does Psychosocial Stress Lead to Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection? A Review of the Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is the acute development of a false lumen within the coronary artery wall by the spontaneous formation of an intramural hematoma which may compromise coronary (blood) flow by compression of the true lumen. Psychological factors have been implicated in its pathophysiology, but a synthesis of available data has not been previously undertaken. A literature search was conducted with the terms coronary artery dissection or spontaneous coronary artery dissection AND the terms psychological stress, anxiety, or depression. Initial studies in the field reported that psychological stress, anxiety, or depression was associated with SCAD and that acute stress may have a role in producing the SCAD. Recent studies with control groups of either acute coronary syndromes or acute myocardial infarction have produced discordant results. A meta-analysis of these studies, in this review, using a fixed effects model, showed that there was no significant association between SCAD and either moderate-to-high psychological stress or moderate-to-severe depression. However, one study reported that patients with SCAD were two-fold more likely to have experienced an emotional precipitant in the 24 h prior to the event. Assessment of patients with SCAD found long-term psychological consequences, and in some cases similar to posttraumatic stress disorder. In conclusion, chronic psychological stress, anxiety, or depression is not associated with the development of SCAD, however acute emotional stress may be a factor precipitating SCAD in some patients. Further research is necessary to examine the biological basis for SCAD and how acute stress might play a role in its pathogenesis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".