The influence of clinical risk factors on pre‐operative B‐type natriuretic peptide risk stratification of vascular surgical patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of the revised cardiac risk index in risk stratification has recently been challenged by studies reporting on the superior predictive ability of pre-operative B-type natriuretic peptides. We found that in 850 vascular surgical patients initially risk stratified using B-type natriuretic peptides, reclassification with the number of revised cardiac risk index risk factors worsened risk stratification (p < 0.05 for > 0, > 2, > 3 and > 4 risk factors, and p = 0.23 for > 1 risk factor). When evaluated with pre-operative B-type natriuretic peptides, none of the revised cardiac risk index risk factors were independent predictors of major adverse cardiac events in vascular patients. The only independent predictor was B-type natriuretic peptide stratification (OR 5.1, 95% CI 1.8-15 for the intermediate class, and OR 25, 95% CI 8.7-70 for the high-risk class). The clinical risk factors in the revised cardiac risk index cannot improve a risk stratification model based on B-type natriuretic peptides.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".