Troponin utilization in patients presenting with atrial fibrillation/flutter to the emergency department: retrospective chart review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few recommendations about the use of cardiac markers in the investigation and management of atrial fibrillation/flutter. Currently, it is unknown how many patients with atrial fibrillation/flutter undergo troponin testing, and how positive troponin results are managed in the emergency department. We sought to look at the emergency department troponin utilization patterns. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with atrial fibrillation/flutter presenting to the emergency department at three centers. Outcome measures included the rates of troponins ordered by emergency doctors, number of positive troponins, and those with positive troponins treated as acute coronary syndrome (ACS) by consulting services. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-one charts were reviewed. A total of 388 (86%) of the patients had troponins ordered, 13.7% had positive results, and 4.9% were treated for ACS. CONCLUSIONS: Troponin tests are ordered in a high percentage of patients with atrial fibrillation/flutter presenting to emergency departments. Five percent of our total patient cohort was diagnosed as having acute coronary syndrome by consulting services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".