MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of System and Physician Factors on the Detection of Obstructive Coronary Disease With Diagnostic Angiography in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

2014· article· en· W2138986242 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Harindra C. Wijeysundera, Feng Qiu, Maria C. Bennell, Madhu K. Natarajan, Warren J. Cantor, Kori Kingsbury, Dennis T. Ko

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesOntario Stroke NetworkHealth Sciences CentreSt. Michael's HospitalSt Mary's Hospital CentreSouthlake Regional Health Center
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioCoronary artery diseaseConfidence intervalInternal medicineCardiologyReferralPercutaneous coronary interventionAngiographyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Wide variation exists in the detection rate of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) with elective coronary angiography for suspected stable ischemic heart disease. We sought to understand the incremental impact of nonclinical factors on this variation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included all patients who underwent coronary angiography for possible suspected stable ischemic heart disease, from October 1, 2008, to September 30, 2011, in Ontario, Canada. Nonclinical factors of interest included physician self-referral for angiography, the physician type (invasive or interventional), and hospital type. Hospitals were categorized into diagnostic angiogram only centers, stand-alone percutaneous coronary intervention centers, or full service centers with coronary artery bypass surgery available. Multivariable hierarchical logistic models were developed to identify system and physician-level predictors of obstructive CAD, after adjustment for patient factors. Our cohort consisted of 60 986 patients, of whom 31 726 had obstructive CAD (52.0%), with significant range across hospitals from 37.3% to 69.2%. Fewer self-referral patients (49.8%) had obstructive CAD compared with nonself-referral patients (53.5%), with an odds ratio of 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.93; P<0.001). Angiograms performed by invasive physicians had a lower likelihood of obstructive CAD compared with those by interventional physicians (48.2% versus 56.9%; odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.90; P<0.001). Fewer angiograms at diagnostic only centers showed obstructive CAD (42.0%) compared with full service centers (55.1%; odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.98; P=0.04). Nonclinical factors accounted for 23.8% of the variation between hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Physician and system factors are important predictors of obstructive CAD with coronary angiography.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.267
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 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207