MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043135794 · doi:10.1136/ebn.5.3.90

A simple risk index accurately predicted mortality in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction

2002· letter· en· W2043135794 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. Wehby

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisNeuroscienceMedicinePathologicalNeurophysiologyStimulationInhibitory postsynaptic potentialCardiologyPsychologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Morrow DA, Antman EM, Giugliano RP, et al. A simple risk index for rapid initial triage of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an InTIME II substudy. Lancet2001 Nov 10; 358 : 1571 –5 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: Can a simple risk index based on 3 routinely collected variables accurately predict mortality in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (MI)? Patient data from 3 multicentre randomised controlled trials were used for the development and validation of a risk index (Intravenous nPA for the Treatment of Infarcting Myocardium Early [InTIME II] Trial; and Thrombolysis and Thrombin Inhibition in Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] 9A and B trials). >800 hospitals worldwide from the InTIME II trial for index development and {150 centres in the US, UK, Canada, Israel, and Germany}* from the TIMI 9A and B trials for index validation. The development set comprised data from 13 253 patients who had ST elevation MI and were enrolled within 6 hours of symptom onset, and who did not have a history of cerebrovascular disease, systolic blood pressure (SBP) … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%26rft.stitle%253DLancet%26rft.aulast%253DMorrow%26rft.auinit1%253DD.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D358%26rft.issue%253D9293%26rft.spage%253D1571%26rft.epage%253D1575%26rft.atitle%253DA%2Bsimple%2Brisk%2Bindex%2Bfor%2Brapid%2Binitial%2Btriage%2Bof%2Bpatients%2Bwith%2BST-elevation%2Bmyocardial%2Binfarction%253A%2Ban%2BInTIME%2BII%2Bsubstudy.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0140-6736%252801%252906649-1%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11716882%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06649-1&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11716882&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F3%2F90.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000172188300009&link_type=ISI

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207