Biochemical markers in the management of suspected acute myocardial infarction in the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare cardiac troponin T, myoglobin, CK, CKMB activity, CKMB mass and the initial electrocardiogram in the early diagnosis of myocardial infarction in the emergency department. Methods-Biochemical markers were measured at presentation in patients with a possible diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. Based on the clinical notes, patients were grouped as "definite myocardial infarction" (n = 50), "definite no myocardial infarction" (n = 81) and "uncertain" (n = 96). Sensitivity and specificity and positive and negative predictive values were calculated using the 131 patients with definitely present or absent myocardial infarction. RESULTS: The initial electrocardiogram was more sensitive than any of the markers in the first six hours from symptom onset-sensitivity 74% (95%CI 61% to 88%). The positive predictive value of the initial electrocardiogram was 97% in the first six hours; the markers ranged from 47% to 67%. The negative predictive value of the initial electrocardiogram was 85% in the first six hours; the markers ranged from 61% to 70%. Four patients with non-diagnostic electrocardiograms presenting beyond six hours after pain onset had a myocardial infarct detected by at least three of the biochemical markers in each case. CONCLUSIONS: The electrocardiogram is of more diagnostic use than biochemical markers in the first six hours after the onset of pain, but biochemical markers give additional positive diagnostic information in patients presenting later than this. The negative predictive accuracy of biochemical markers is too low for a single sample to be useful for excluding myocardial infarction in the first six hours after onset of symptoms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".