MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W141555805

Can structured clinical assessment using modified Duke's criteria improve appropriate use of echocardiography in patients with suspected infective endocarditis?

2003· article· en· W141555805 on OpenAlexaff
Davinder S. Jassal, Candace Lee, Candice Silversides, James W. Tam

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndocarditisInfective endocarditisInternal medicineCardiologyHeart disease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although echocardiography has been incorporated into the diagnostic algorithm of patients with suspected infective endocarditis, systematic usage in clinical practice remains ill defined. OBJECTIVE: To test whether the rigid application of a predefined standardized clinical assessment using the Duke criteria by the research team would provide improved diagnostic accuracy of endocarditis when compared with usual clinical care provided by the attending team. METHODS: Between April 1, 2000 and March 31, 2001, 101 consecutive inpatients with suspected endocarditis were examined prospectively and independently by both teams. The clinical likelihood of endocarditis was graded as low, moderate or high. All patients underwent transthoracic echocardiography and appropriate transesophageal echocardiography if deemed necessary. All diagnostic and therapeutic outcomes were evaluated prospectively. RESULTS: Of 101 consecutive inpatients (age 50+/-16 years; 62 males) enrolled, 22% subsequently were found to have endocarditis. The pre-echocardiographic likelihood categories as graded by the clinical and research teams were low in nine and 37 patients, respectively, moderate in 83 and 40 patients, respectively, and high in nine and 24 patients, respectively, with only a marginal agreement in classification (kappa=0.33). Of the 37 patients in the low likelihood group and 40 in the intermediate group, no endocarditis was diagnosed. In 22 of 24 patients classified in the high likelihood group, there was echocardiographic evidence of vegetations suggestive of endocarditis. Discriminating factors that increased the likelihood of endocarditis were a prior history of valvular disease, the presence of an indwelling catheter, positive blood cultures, and the presence of a new murmur and a vascular event. General internists, rheumatologists and intensive care physicians were more likely to order echocardiography in patients with low clinical probability of endocarditis, of which pneumonia was the most common alternative diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Although prediction of clinical likelihood varies between observers, endocarditis is generally found only in those individuals with a moderate to high pre-echocardiographic clinical likelihood. Strict adherence to indications for transthoracic echocardiography and transesophageal echocardiography may help to facilitate more accurate diagnosis within the moderate likelihood category. Patients with low likelihood do not derive additional diagnostic benefit with echocardiography although other factors such as physician reassurance may continue to drive diagnostic demand.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicInfective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→