Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 325

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sex Differences in Ischemic Heart Disease: Advances, Obstacles, and Next Steps

Open access
Aggarwal, Niti R., Patel, Hena N., Mehta, Laxmi S., Sanghani, Rupa M., Lundberg, Gina P., Lewis, Sandra J., Mendelson, Marla A., Wood, Malissa J., Volgman, Annabelle S., Mieres, Jennifer H.·2018·Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

Abstract

Evolving knowledge of sex-specific presentations, improved recognition of conventional and novel risk factors, and expanded understanding of the sex-specific pathophysiology of ischemic heart disease have resulted in improved clinical outcomes in women. Yet, ischemic heart disease continues to be the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in women in the United States. The important publication by the Institute of Medicine titled “Women’s Health Research—Progress, Pitfalls, and Promise,” highlights the persistent disparities in cardiovascular disease burden among subgroups of women, particularly women who are socially disadvantaged because of race, ethnicity, income level, and educational attainment. These important health disparities reflect underrepresentation of women in research, with the resultant unfavorable impact on diagnosis, prevention, and treatment strategies in women at risk for cardiovascular disease. Causes of disparities are multifactorial and related to differences in risk factor prevalence, access to care, use of evidence-based guidelines, and social and environmental factors. Lack of awareness in both the public and medical community, as well as existing knowledge gap regarding sex-specific differences in presentation, risk factors, pathophysiology, and response to treatment for ischemic heart disease, further contribute to outcome disparities. There is a critical need for implementation of sex- and gender-specific strategies to improve cardiovascular outcomes. This review is tailored to meet the needs of a busy clinician and summarizes the contemporary trends, characterizes current sex-specific outcome disparities, delineates challenges, and proposes transformative solutions for improvement of the full spectrum of ischemic heart disease clinical care and research in women.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circoutcomes.117.004437

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 95 references

Cited by

See all 325

Metadata

Authors
Aggarwal, N. R., Patel, H. N., Mehta, L. S., Sanghani, R. M., Lundberg, G. P., Lewis, S. J., Mendelson, M. A., Wood, M. J., Volgman, A. S., & Mieres, J. H.
Venue
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Published
2018-02
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
e004437-e004437
ISSN
  • 1941-7705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7713
OpenAlex
W2787250223
Cited by
325
References
95
FWCI
21.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sex Differences in Ischemic Heart Disease: Advances, Obstacles, and Next Steps. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circoutcomes.117.004437
The paper
Aggarwal, N. R., Patel, H. N., Mehta, L. S., Sanghani, R. M., Lundberg, G. P., Lewis, S. J., Mendelson, M. A., Wood, M. J., Volgman, A. S., & Mieres, J. H. (2018). Sex Differences in Ischemic Heart Disease: Advances, Obstacles, and Next Steps. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1161/circoutcomes.117.004437

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.