MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116354160 · doi:10.14740/cr2123

Stress and Acute Coronary Syndrome

2025· article· en· W7116354160 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shereif H. Rezkalla, Robert A. Kloner

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcute coronary syndromeAngerCoronary artery diseaseIncidence (geometry)RehabilitationMental stressEmotional stressSudden cardiac death

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A plethora of risk factors, such as hypercholesterolemia, smoking, hypertension, and others lead to the progression of coronary atherosclerosis. Vulnerable plaques are formed, and rupture of such plaques results in the development of myocardial infarction. Great progress has been made in the medical community's focus on management of risk factors, with clear improvement in the incidence and outcome of myocardial infarction. However, triggers of plaque rupture, which include significant physical and mental stress, need more attention. In this report, we focused on the effect of emotional stress in triggering various acute cardiac events. Natural disasters such as earthquakes result in significant emotional stress, and have been associated with substantial increases in cardiac death and acute myocardial infarction. This is more pronounced with severe events, particularly if they occur in the early morning hours. Anger and severe emotional stress from various life events, particularly from stressed marital relations or stressful working conditions, will result in markedly increased occurrence of myocardial infarction. This is more pronounced in patients with known coronary artery disease or significant risk factors. Providers need to focus on management of stress during hospitalization for myocardial infarction, as well as in the rehabilitation phase of such events.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.404 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207