Abstract P1016: Relationships between Sex and In Hospital Outcomes in Patients with Complete Heart Block.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a growing body of data to support the presence of sex disparities in outcomes in cardiovascular related hospitalizations. Despite this, there remains a paucity of data on relationships between sex and in-hospital outcomes in cases of Complete Heart Block (CHB). Methods: We examined the 2016-2020 Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD) to identify patients with a principal diagnosis of CHB. Men were used as our control group, while women comprised our cohort. The primary outcome was in-patient mortality. Secondary outcomes included odds of mechanical ventilation use, all cause 30-day readmission, length of stay (LOS) and total hospitalization charges (THC). Multivariate linear and logistic regression models were used to adjust for confounders. Results: Among the patients with CHB (N = 175,257), 45% were Female. A Female sex was associated with higher odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.42, 95% CI 1.3 – 1.55, p<0.001) compared to male patients with CHB. Additionally, female sex was associated with a higher likelihood of mechanical ventilation use (aOR 1.1, 95% CI 1.03 – 1.2, p=0.004), all cause 30-day readmission (aOR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03 – 1.13, p=0.004), longer LOS (4.13 days vs 3.86 days, p<0.001) and lower THC ($89,908 vs. $94,590, p=0.002) compared to male patients with CHB. Conclusion: Among patients with CHB, female sex was associated with higher odds of mortality, non-fatal adverse events, and lower resource utilization compared to male patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".