Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Health Status and Long-Term Outcomes in a Primary Prevention Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poor cardiovascular health quantified by 8 health behaviors and factors is associated with incident cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, it is not clear if this association differs between women and men. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to determine whether the association between cardiovascular health status and incident CVD events differs by sex. METHODS: Adults enrolled in the Ontario Health Study (March 2009-December 2017) with no prior CVD were included. Cardiovascular health was assessed based on the presence of ideal diet, sleep, physical activity, smoking, body habitus, blood glucose, blood cholesterol, and blood pressure. CVD events were ascertained to March 31, 2023. The association between ideal, intermediate, and poor health and outcomes was assessed using age-adjusted, cause-specific models, including interaction terms for sex. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 175,098 individuals (61.4% women, mean age 47 years). Compared to men, more women had ideal cardiovascular health (9.1% vs 4.6%), while fewer women had poor cardiovascular health (21.9% vs 30.5%). Compared to ideal cardiovascular health, the age-adjusted HR for intermediate cardiovascular health was 2.31 (95% CI: 1.72-3.11) in women, which was greater than the HR of 1.57 (95% CI: 1.16-2.11) in men. Similarly, the HR for poor cardiovascular health was 5.08 (95% CI: 3.78-6.84) in women and nearly double the HR of 2.54 (95% CI: 1.89-3.41) in men (P < 0.01 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: In this primary prevention cohort, as cardiovascular health status declined, the relative impact on the future rate of CVD was greater for women than for men. This supports sex-specific health promotion strategies to improve health status and outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".