MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408966316 · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-22214-4

Gender disparities in delayed angina diagnosis: insights from 2001–2020 NHANES data

2025· article· en· W4408966316 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Naydeen Mostafa, Ahmed A. Sayed, Marwan Hamed, Muhiddin Dervis, Omar Almaadawy, Omar Baqal

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAin Shams University
KeywordsMedicineNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyAnginaCoronary artery diseaseBody mass indexOdds ratioCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyLogistic regressionPopulationOddsDemographyEpidemiologyInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Women with coronary artery disease (CAD) are more likely than men to experience a delay in diagnosis, which is attributed to differences in clinical presentation. The objective of this study is to examine any persistent disparities in timely CAD diagnosis in the United States (U.S.) among women who present with clinically similar symptoms and demographic characteristics to their male counterparts. METHODS: From the 2001 - 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data, participants were categorized as having missed angina if they experienced angina and did not self-report a prior diagnosis of angina pectoris or CAD. We assessed the association between gender and missed angina using weighted multivariate logistic regression models representative of the U.S. POPULATION: Mortality follow-up data were available for participants up to December 31, 2018. RESULTS: Of 874 participants with missed angina, 551 (63%) were women and 323 (37.0%) were men. Baseline characteristics showed that women and men with missed angina were more likely than their diagnosed counterparts to be younger, of ethnic minorities, uninsured, and smokers. Women with missed angina were more likely to be in a relationship than diagnosed women, while the opposite pattern was observed in men. The odds ratio of missed angina in women compared to men was 2.61 (95% CI: 1.73, 3.94) after adjusting for age, race, education, body mass index, smoking, alcohol use, income, insurance, and comorbidities. Among participants who had a cardiac cause of death, the odds of missed angina in women compared to men was 3.02 (95% CI: 1.18, 7.75) in the adjusted model. CONCLUSION: Women with similar CAD symptoms to their male counterparts still have higher odds of going undiagnosed. This relationship extends to individuals who ultimately die of cardiac causes. Potential solutions to this disparity include addressing overgeneralized perceptions of differences in the prevalence and presentation of CAD between genders and exploring targeted screening programs for women with risk factors. Further research accounting for healthcare access and proximity to care is needed to support our findings. Timely recognition of CAD in women is essential to decreasing preventable mortality.

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)0.002
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public Health→Same topicCardiac Health and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→