MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Angina pectoris after coronary angiography or revascularization in pre- and postmenopausal women with coronary artery disease

2024· article· en· W4403819246 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M A E Eskuri, Tuomas Kenttä, AM Kiviniemi, Mikko P. Tulppo, Samuli Lepojärvi, Olli-Pekka Piira, Juha S. Perkiömäki, Heikki Huikuri, Juhani Junttila

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineAnginaCoronary artery diseaseCoronary angiographyRevascularizationAngiographyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Menopause is a known risk factor of coronary artery disease (CAD) in women. Earlier studies indicate that the incidence of angina pectoris (AP) increases with age. Some studies suggest that menopause would be a risk factor for AP in women with history of myocardial infarction (MI). However, the evidence is still incomplete. Purpose The aim of this study was to determine whether pre- or postmenopausal women are more symptomatic after revascularization using Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) grading and New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. We also wanted to evaluate whether the presence of type two diabetes (T2D) had an impact of the volume of the symptoms of CAD. Methods ARTEMIS Study contains 1,947 subjects with angiographically documented CAD with or without T2D (women 31.8%). Nondiabetic patients were matched with T2D patients for age, sex, prior MI and revascularization. Information of the menopause was from 610 women. Results Total of 584 women were at postmenopausal stage and only 26 were at premenopausal stage. The mean age of the premenopausal women was 57.5±10.8 years (P<0.001) and 69.4±7.5 years in postmenopausal women (P<0.001). Among premenopausal women 46.2% were active or ex-smokers and 26.8% of postmenopausal women still smoked or had smoked in the past (P=0.031). There was not statistically significant difference in other baseline characteristics: BMI, LDL or BNP levels, systolic or diastolic blood pressure, syntax score prior or after the revascularization and prevalence of prior MI. Over half of the postmenopausal women (57.4%, p<0.001) reported to suffer chest pain CCS grade ≥ 2 after the revascularization whereas only one fifth of the premenopausal women (23.1%, P<0.001) reported the same level of AP. T2D seemed to increase the symptoms of CAD as 33.3% of the premenopausal and 61.7% of the postmenopausal women with T2D reported AP with severity of CCS grade ≥ 2 (P=0.050). CCS 2 symptoms were reported by 45.7% of the postmenopausal and 19.2% of the premenopausal women, and CCS 3 symptoms by 11.6% of the postmenopausal women, yet only 3.8% of the premenopausal women (p=0.001 for both, respectively). Three quarter of the premenopausal women reported CCS 1 level of symptoms but only 42.6% of the postmenopausal women (P=0.003). Prevalence of each of CCS grade reported within pre- and postmenopausal women with and without T2D are shown in the Table 1. None of the premenopausal women reported NYHA ≥ 2 dyspnea, and the same level of shortness of breath was reported also only from 4.3 % of the postmenopausal women (p=0.005). Among postmenopausal women with T2D, NYHA ≥ 2 symptoms were more common, though statistical significance was not obtained (9.2%, P=0.196). Conclusion Postmenopausal women seem to experience more CAD-related symptoms after angiography or revascularization compared premenopausal women. Presence of T2D seems to associate with higher CCS grade after revascularization.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→