MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1847493387 · doi:10.25011/cim.v30i3.1745

Times to Treatment in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention at Laval Hospital

2007· article· en· W1847493387 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Philippe Lachance, Patrick Garceau, Jean‐Pierre Déry

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarctionObservational studyEmergency medicineDoor-to-balloonInternal medicineCath lab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background:Current guidelines for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) recommend performing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 90 min of hospital arrival. However, recent data suggest that, in a real-world setting, median door-to-balloon (DTB) time is closer to 180 minfor transferred patients with no more than 4 % of patients treated within 90 min. We conducted this retrospective observational study to assess time to treatment in patients undergoing primary PCI at Quebec Heart and Lung Institute (QHLI). Methods: Consecutive lytic-eligible patients undergoing primary PCI at QHLI for STEMI between April 2004 and March 2004 were included in the present analysis. The primary evaluation was DTB time measured from arrival at the first hospital to first balloon inflation. Clinical outcomes consisted of in-hospital death, reinfarction and bleeding. DTB times and hospital outcomes of patients transferred from referring hospitals were compared to patients presenting directly to QHLI. Results: During the study period, 203 lytic-eligible patients were treated with primary PCI and included in the present analysis. Sixty-nine patients presented directly to QHLI and 134 were transferred from other Quebec City hospitals. The median DTB time was 114 min in transferred patients, compared with 87 min for patients presenting directly to QHLI [P < 0.001]. DTB time was

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)0.000
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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicine→Same topicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research→French-language works237,207→