MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005848088 · doi:10.1159/000007033

The Utility of Four Biochemical Markers in the Triage of Chest Pain Patients

2000· article· en· W2005848088 on OpenAlexaff
Myrvin Ellestad, Ronald H. Startt-Selvester, Eric Stanton, Bruce VanNatta, Javed Ahmad, Yehia Gawad, Florence Swiger

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonSt. Joseph's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChest painMedicineCoronary artery diseaseUnstable anginaInternal medicineCardiologyMyocardial infarctionCreatine kinaseCardiac markerEmergency departmentTroponin ITroponinMyoglobinTriageAnginaEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four biochemical markers, creatine kinase (CK)-MB isoenzyme, myoglobin, myosin light chains and troponin I, were studied in 1,338 patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain suggestive of coronary artery disease (CAD). One hundred and eighty-seven patients had an acute myocardial infarction (MI). At least one of the four markers was over the threshold on the first sample in 78% of MI patients, as compared to only 40% with an elevated CK-MB. After 4 h, 88% had at least one marker elevated. None of the 69 patients with atypical chest pain, no history of CAD, no markers over threshold on the first sample and a normal electrocardiogram had an acute MI or unstable angina. If we had discharged this group, we would have saved USD 264,000, estimating a cost of USD 2,000 per day. Using four biochemical markers improved the early diagnosis of CAD and may help identify groups suitable for early discharge.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiologySame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207