Alignment of site versus adjudication committee–based diagnosis with patient outcomes: Insights from the Providing Rapid Out of Hospital Acute Cardiovascular Treatment 3 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adjudication by an adjudication committee in clinical trials plays an important role in the assessment of outcomes. Controversy exists regarding the utility of adjudication committee versus site-based assessments and their relationship to subsequent clinical events. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of the Providing Rapid Out of Hospital Acute Cardiovascular Treatment-3 trial, which randomized patients with chest pain or shortness of breath for biomarker testing in the ambulance. The emergency department physician diagnosis at the time of emergency department disposition was compared with an adjudicated diagnosis assigned by an adjudication committee. The level of agreement between emergency department and adjudication committee diagnosis was evaluated using kappa coefficient and compared to clinical outcomes (30-day re-hospitalization, 30-day and 1-year mortality). RESULTS: Of the 477 patients, 49.3% were male with a median age of 70 years; hospital admission rate was 31.2%. The emergency department physicians and the adjudication committee disagreed in 55 cases (11.5%) with a kappa of 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.64, 0.78). The 30-day re-hospitalization, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality were 22%, 1.9%, and 9.4%, respectively. Although there were similar rates of re-hospitalization irrespective of adjudication, in cases of disagreement compared to agreement between adjudication committee and emergency department diagnosis, there was a higher 30-day (7.3% vs 1.2%, p = 0.002) and 1-year mortality (27.3% vs 7.1%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite substantial agreement between the diagnosis of emergency department physicians and adjudication committee, in the subgroup of patients where there was disagreement, there was significantly worse short-term and long-term mortality.
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 | 0.138 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".