MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097127592

The earliest meta-analysis...

2013· article· en· W7097127592 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral Health QuestionnaireAnxietyDistressPsychosocialPsychological interventionDepression (economics)Randomized controlled trial
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The objective of this secondary analysis was to examine the relationships between a reduction in psychological distress and long-term cardiac and psychological outcomes in post–myocardial infarction patients who participated in a randomized trial of home-based psychosocial nursing interventions (the Montreal Heart Attack Readjustment Trial [M-HART]). Gender differences were considered. Methods: We studied 433 patients (36.0 % women) from the M-HART treatment group who received two home visits after achieving a high psychological distress score (ie, �5) on the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). Short-term GHQ success was determined by a return to a normal GHQ score (�5) or a reduction of �50 % after the two visits. Patients with short-term successful and unsuccessful GHQ outcomes were compared for mid-term maintenance of success, 1-year death and readmission rates, and 1-year depression and anxiety symptoms. Results: Patients with short-term GHQ success were more likely to show mid-term GHQ success (p �.001), marginally less likely to die of any causes (p �.087), less likely to die of cardiac causes (p �.043), less likely to be readmitted for any reason (p �.001) and for cardiac reasons (p �.001), and less likely to have high depression (p �.001) and anxiety (p �.001) at 1-year than patients with short-term unsuccessful GHQ outcomes. Results held for men and women and were not altered by controlling for potential confounders. However, the number of deaths prevented analysis with statistical controls. Conclusions: Post–myocardial infarction interventions that reduce psychological distress have the potential to improve long-term

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.021
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.003

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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