MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985398751 · doi:10.1309/gk9b-fab1-y5ln-bwu1

Impact of the Cardiac Troponin Testing Algorithm on Excessive and Inappropriate Troponin Test Requests

2006· article· en· W1985398751 on OpenAlexaff
Qing H. Meng, Shiming Zhu, Cheryl Booth, Linda Stevens, Bonnie Bertsch, Mabood Qureshi, Jawahar Kalra

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTroponinMedicineTroponin ICardiologyInternal medicineTest (biology)AlgorithmMyocardial infarctionComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac troponin (cTn) is a key biomarker for the assessment of myocardial injury, but overutilization of this test has increased workload and costs. We developed and implemented an algorithm to eliminate excessive utilization. Significant reduction was observed after the implementation of the algorithm in total cTnI requests (29.9%; P = .007), requests from outpatient clinics (70.7%; P = .003), and other wards (42.8%; P = .003). Stat requests, the number of third requests, and more than 3 requests per patient were reduced significantly by 42.8% (P = .004), 35.8% (P = .003), and 49.4% (P = .008), respectively. The test and labor costs each were reduced by 29.9% (P = .007 for each). There was no significant change in cTnI orders from emergency and critical care departments. The cTnI testing algorithm reduced unnecessary orders for cTnI tests with no reduction in meeting patients'critical needs. Reduction in unnecessary and inappropriate requests reduces labor and test costs.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.374 · 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

Citations19
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical PathologySame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207