Outcomes of acute myocardial infarction in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little information is available on recent population-based trends in the outcomes of patients who have had an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Canada. METHODS: Data were analyzed from the Discharge Abstract Database and Hospital Morbidity Database of the Canadian Institute for Health Information. All new cases of AMI in Canada between fiscal 1997/98 and fiscal 1999/2000 of patients at least 20 years old were examined. Data were also analyzed from these databases for hospital readmissions for a second AMI, angina and congestive heart failure (CHF). RESULTS: There were 139,523 new AMI cases. The overall crude in-hospital AMI mortality rate in Canada was 12.3%. In-hospital mortality rate after an AMI was worse for women than for men in Canada (16.7% and 9.9%, respectively). The age- and sex-standardized in-hospital mortality rate varied from a low of 10.5% (95% CI 8.4% to 12.6%) in Prince Edward Island to a high of 13.1% (95% CI 12.8% to 13.5%) in Quebec. Among AMI survivors, 12.5% were readmitted within one year for angina, 7.7% for a second AMI and 7.5% for CHF. There were wide interregional differences in age- and sex-standardized mortality rates and one-year readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS: AMI is associated with a substantial acute mortality rate in Canada, especially in the elderly and female patients. Identifying the causes of interregional differences in patient outcomes should be a priority for future research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".