Advancing the access to cardiovascular diagnosis and treatment among women with cardiovascular disease: a joint British Cardiovascular Societies’ consensus document
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite significant progress in cardiovascular pharmacotherapy and interventional strategies, cardiovascular disease (CVD), in particular ischaemic heart disease, remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among women in the UK and worldwide. Women are underdiagnosed, undertreated and under-represented in clinical trials directed at management strategies for CVD, making their results less applicable to this subset. Women have additional sex-specific risk factors that put them at higher risk of future cardiovascular events. Psychosocial risk factors, socioeconomic deprivation and environmental factors have an augmented impact on women's cardiovascular health, highlighting the need for a holistic approach to care that considers risk factors specifically related to female biology alongside the traditional risk factors. Importantly, in the UK, even in the context of a National Health Service, there exist significant regional variations in age-standardised mortality rates among patients with CVD. Given most CVDs are preventable, concerted efforts are necessary to address the unmet needs and ensure parity of care for women with CVD. The present consensus document, put together by the British Cardiovascular Society (BCS)'s affiliated societies, specifically portrays the current status on the sex-related differences in the diagnosis and treatment of each of the major CVD areas and proposes strategies to overcome the barriers in accessing diagnoses and treatments among women. This document aims at raising awareness of the scale of the current problem and hopes to stimulate a multifaceted approach to address sex disparities and enable future comprehensive sex- and gender-based research through collaboration across different affiliated societies within the BCS.
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 | 0.053 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".