MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 3273: Timely Access to Care - Risk Stratification Utilizing the Seattle Heart Failure Model in patients with Advanced Heart Failure: Dying to be seen.

2007· article· en· W119217717 on OpenAlexaffabout
Filio Billia, Vaska Micevski, Susan Carson, Diego Delgado, Heather J. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralHeart failureRisk stratificationMultidisciplinary approachInternal medicinePediatricsEmergency medicineCardiologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Heart failure is an epidemic with age-adjusted mortality of 45%/5 years. Multidisciplinary heart function clinics (HFC) have been shown to improve outcomes in patients. Timely access to cardiac care remains one of Canada’s leading concerns. Risk stratification of patients upon referral to a HFC may identify patients that require urgent access to, and benefit from, multidisciplinary care. Hypothesis To determine if a priori assessment using the Seattle Heart Failure Survival Model (SHFM) at the time of referral to a multidisciplinary HFC would help risk stratify patients regarding urgency of consultation. Methods The referral packages of patients known to have died prior to or within 60 days of initial consultation were retrospectively reviewed (Group 1). Data were collected to determine the mortality risk based on the SHFM. Age and sex-matched controls were randomly selected from our HFC database (Group 2). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS. Results A total of 107 patients were included in this study (Group 1, n=57; Group 2 n=50). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. In Group 1, 38% of patients died before being evaluated, while the remaining 62% died within 60 days of the initial HFC visit. The majority of patients in both groups had either ischemic or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (52% and 22%, respectively). Patients in Group 1 reported NYHA class III/IV symptoms 40%/33%, respectively, versus Group 2 patients reporting NYHA class III/IV symptoms 46%/8%, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean SHFM mortality risk score, predicted at the time of initial receipt of referral, between the study groups with Group 1 patients having a much higher predicted mortality versus Group 2 at 1, 2 and 5 years (p<0.001). Conclusion The SHFM is a useful tool to risk stratify patients with HF at the time of referral/entry into a multidisciplinary clinic. It provides a reliable method to triage risk and ensure that those at greatest risk are seen soonest, hence facilitating timely access for care. Prospective validation regarding the triage applicability of the SHFSS is needed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicHealthcare Systems and Practices→French-language works237,207→