MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adherence of Catheterization Laboratory Cardiologists to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions and Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

2010· article· en· W1970187629 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Edward L. Hannan, Michael Racz, Jeffrey P. Gold, Kimberly Cozzens, Nicholas J. Stamato, Tia Powell, Mary Hibberd, Gary Walford

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCICardiologyCardiac catheterizationInternal medicineAnginaMyocardial infarctionCoronary artery diseaseUnstable anginaPercutaneous coronary interventionInterventional cardiologyCanadian Cardiovascular Society

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have issued guidelines for the use of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for many years, but little is known about the impact of these evidence-based guidelines on referral decisions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cardiac catheterization laboratory database used by 19 hospitals in New York State was used to identify treatment (CABG surgery, PCI, medical treatment, or nothing) recommended by the catheterization laboratory cardiologist for patients undergoing catheterization with asymptomatic/mild angina, stable angina, and unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction between January 1, 2005, and August 31, 2007. The recommended treatment was compared with indications for these patients based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. Of the 16 142 patients undergoing catheterization who were found to have coronary artery disease, the catheterization laboratory cardiologist was the final source of recommendation for 10 333 patients (64%). Of these 10 333 patients, 13% had indications for CABG surgery, 59% for PCI, and 17% for both CABG surgery and PCI. Of the patients who had indications for CABG surgery, 53% were recommended for CABG and 34% for PCI. Of the patients with indications for PCI, 94% were recommended for PCI. For the patients who had indications for both CABG surgery and PCI, 93% were recommended for PCI and 5% for CABG surgery. Catheterization laboratory cardiologists in hospitals with PCI capability were more likely to recommend patients for PCI than hospitals in which only catheterization was performed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with coronary artery disease receive more recommendations for PCI and fewer recommendations for CABG surgery than indicated in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations118
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207