MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170296955 · doi:10.1136/hrt.2004.040485

Increased titres of anti-human heat shock protein 60 predict an adverse one year prognosis in patients with acute cardiac chest pain

2005· article· en· W2170296955 on OpenAlexaff
David H. Birnie

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHeat shock proteins research
Canadian institutionsOttawa Heart Institute
FundersBritish Heart Foundation
KeywordsMedicineChest painMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineCardiologyAdverse effectHazard ratioInterquartile rangeShock (circulatory)Confidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether antibodies to human heat shock protein 60 (anti-huhsp60) or to mycobacterial heat shock protein 65 (anti-mhsp65) predict an adverse one year prognosis in patients admitted with acute cardiac chest pain. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Teaching hospital. PATIENTS: 588 consecutive emergency admissions of patients with acute chest pain of suspected cardiac origin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anti-huhsp60 and anti-mhsp65 titres were assayed on samples drawn on the morning after admission. The end points after discharge were coronary heart disease death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, angiogram, or readmission with further cardiac ischaemic chest pain. RESULTS: During follow up after discharge (mean of 304 days, range 1-788 days), 277 patients had at least one of the study outcomes. Patients with increased titres of anti-huhsp60 had an adverse prognosis (hazard ratio 1.56 (95% confidence interval 1.09 to 2.23) comparing highest versus lowest quartiles, p = 0.015). Anti-mhsp65 titres were not predictive. CONCLUSIONS: Patients admitted with acute cardiac chest pain and increased titres of anti-huhsp60 had an adverse one year prognosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeartSame topicHeat shock proteins researchFrench-language works237,207