MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032299726 · doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304717

Key recommendations and evidence from the NICE guideline for the acute management of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction

2013· review· en· W2032299726 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin Harker, Serena Carville, Robert Henderson, Huon Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNiceGuidelineCardiogenic shockMyocardial infarctionReperfusion therapyChest painPsychological interventionIntensive care medicineUnstable anginaST elevationAnginaCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyInternal medicineEmergency medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The acute management of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has seen significant changes in the past decade. Although the incidence has been declining in the UK, STEMI still gives rise to around 600 hospitalised episodes per million people each year, with many additional cases resulting in death before hospital admission. In-hospital mortality following acute coronary syndromes has fallen over the past 30 years from around 20% to nearer 5%, and this improved outcome has been attributed to various factors, including timely access to an expanding range of effective interventional and pharmacological treatments. A formal review of the acute management of STEMI is therefore appropriate. The recently published NICE clinical guideline (CG167: The acute management of myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation) provides evidence-based guidance on the acute management of STEMI, including the choice of reperfusion strategies, procedural aspects of the recommended interventions, the use of additional drugs before and longside reperfusion therapies, and the treatment of patients who are unconscious or in cardiogenic shock. The guideline development methods and detailed reviews of the evidence considered by the Guideline Development Group (GDG) can be found in the full version of the guideline (http://www.nice.org.uk/CG167), and the priority recommendations are summarised in box 1. Other related NICE clinical guidelines deal with the diagnosis of recent-onset chest pain of suspected cardiac origin http://www.nice.org.uk/CG95), the early management of unstable angina and non-STEMI (http://www.nice.org.uk/CG94), and secondary prevention after myocardial infarction (http://www.nice.org.uk/CG48, currently being updated with publication expected end of 2013).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.438
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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeartSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207