Elevated Troponin I in the Absence of Coronary Artery Disease: A Case Report With Review of Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac troponins are the most sensitive and specific markers of myocardial injury. In fact, the Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction (MI) states that troponins are the preferred cardiac marker for detecting myocardial injury. For the aforementioned reasons, troponin levels are routinely ordered for patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain, dyspnea, syncope, or any other possible presentations of MI. While troponin levels do reflect the extent of myocardial damage, they do not necessarily indicate myocardial ischemia in a subset of patients. Elevated troponin levels can be due to a wide array of mechanisms in the absence of myocardial ischemia and injury. Thus, relying solely on troponin levels, in the presence of a normal electrocardiogram (ECG), to diagnose myocardial ischemia can lead to unnecessary and expensive invasive testing. It is therefore important for the clinician to keep in mind the varying causes of troponin elevations in order to provide the highest value care to the patient. We present a case and review of literature regarding patients who present with elevated troponin levels in the absence of any coronary artery disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".