Abstract 3464: Gender Differences In Coronary Revascularization Rates Following Acute Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective(s): Studies suggest that early revascularization following an AMI is equally important in both genders. We examined coronary revascularization (PCI or CABG) rates in men and women following an AMI. Methods: We studied a cohort of 7 728 patients >20 years with an AMI admission between January 1, 1999, and September 30, 2002 who underwent catheterization within 90 days of their index AMI. Demographic, clinical, and procedural data were obtained from the British Columbia (BC) Cardiac Registry, a prospective registry of all cardiac procedures performed in BC. Patients without 180 days of available follow-up and patients with a normal angiogram were excluded. Our primary objective was to examine gender differences in the odds of undergoing coronary revascularization within 180 days of the index coronary catheterization. We also examined time trends in revascularization rates by gender from 1999 to 2002. Results: Of the 6 726 eligible patients, 68.2% of women and 78.4% of men underwent revascularization within 180 days of their index catheterization following an AMI (p<0.0001). After adjusting for age, extent of vessel disease, hyperlipidemia, LVEF, DM, CHF, CRF, HTN, PVD, CVA, COPD, liver disease, cancer, case complexity, ICU/CCU use, and catheterization year, women were still less likely to undergo revascularization (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 – 0.93). There was no interaction between gender and year of catheterization post-AMI (Figure 1 ). Conclusion: Conditional on receiving coronary catheterization within 90 days following an AMI, women were less likely to undergo coronary revascularization within 180 days compared to men. The gender difference persisted from 1999 to 2002.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".