Diagnostic specificity and prognostic value of cardiac troponins in asymptomatic chronic haemodialysis patients: a three year prospective study: Figure 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diagnosis and risk stratification of coronary artery disease (CAD) are key issues in the management of haemodialysis patients. In patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD), the specificity of cardiac troponin T (cTnT) is low (< 80%) in contrast to cardiac troponin I (cTnI) (81–100%). However, in asymptomatic patients with ESRD, an increased cTnT concentration is associated with an increased risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and while some studies have documented the same relation between cTnI and future ACS others have been inconclusive or negative.1–4 Discrepancies between these studies may be secondary to the type of assay used to measure cTnI, the cut off concentration used to categorise patients, the outcome measured, or the length of patient follow up. Since cTnI are likely to be favoured over cTnT in the acute care of patients with ESRD because of a higher specificity, the predictive value of this marker in asymptomatic patients is important to clarify. Our work aimed at comparing the prognostic value of cardiac troponins over a three year follow up in asymptomatic patients with ESRD. A three year prospective study was undertaken in February 2001 of all eligible patients on chronic haemodialysis in our hospital. Patients having presented with angina within the previous 14 days or with a diagnosis of ACS in the previous four weeks were excluded. Other exclusion criteria were pericarditis, pulmonary embolism in the previous …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".