MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401180593 · doi:10.1161/jaha.124.034644

Objective Ischemia, Subjective Angina, and Psychological Distress in Angina With No Obstructive Coronary Disease

2024· article· en· W4401180593 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuting Liu, Wei Jiang, Haochen Wang, Mingyu Xu, Yingxue Liao, Haofeng Zhou, Bingqing Bai, Fengyao Liu, Han Yin, Quanjun Liu, Yanting Liang, Xueju Yu, Lan Guo, Shu-Xia Wang, Huan Ma, Qingshan Geng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnxietyAnginaIschemiaInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseStress testing (software)Perceived Stress ScaleCardiologyMyocardial perfusion imagingDepression (economics)Physical therapyMental healthMyocardial infarctionPsychiatryStress (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Angina with no obstructive coronary disease (ANOCA) and ischemia with no obstructive coronary disease, prevalent yet underrecognized conditions, mostly affect women. Previous studies rarely distinguished between them. We aimed to compare the prevalence of objective ischemia through various examinations in women with ANOCA and assess the impact of objective and subjective ischemia on their mental health. Methods and Results A total of 84 eligible women with ANOCA and 42 controls underwent mental stress, pharmacological stress, exercise stress, and Holter testing. Objective evidence of myocardial ischemia was assessed by positron emission tomography‐computed tomography and ECG, and subjective symptoms were graded using the Canadian Cardiovascular Society scale (CCS). Psychological assessments were conducted using 6 scales. Among 84 women with ANOCA, 37 (44%) received a diagnosis of ischemia with no obstructive coronary disease following mental stress testing, 20 (28.6%) through pharmacological stress testing, 14 (21.2%) via exercise stress testing, and 24 (32.9%) from Holter. Mental stress‐induced myocardial ischemia was more prevalent ( P <0.05). Among 54 patients with ANOCA who completed all tests, 30% showed no ischemia, and only 1 (1.9%) showed ischemia in all tests. In addition, patients with ANOCA had higher psychological scores than controls ( P <0.01). No significant differences was observed in psychological scores between ANOCA with positive and negative ischemia test results ( P >0.05). However, ANOCA with milder angina (CCS I) exhibited higher scores across the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory, Perceived Stress Scale, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist‐Civilian Version and a higher prevalence of Type D personality traits ( P <0.05). Conclusions In patients with ANOCA, the positive rate of myocardial ischemia exhibits variability among several noninvasive tests. A worsened psychological state is more closely linked to milder angina symptoms than to ischemia performance, highlighting the importance of focusing on symptom management in their psychological care. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03982901.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart Association→Same topicCardiac Health and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→