Abstract 18419: Evolution of a Regional STEMI Reperfusion Model: More and Earlier Reperfusion but No Improvement in Clinical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Guidelines strongly recommend that regional systems of STEMI care include the assessment and continuous quality improvement of emergency medical services and hospital-based activities. Hypothesis: Within a mixed reperfusion model of STEMI care, the introduction of individual care components will improve reperfusion times and clinical outcomes. Methods: All patients with confirmed STEMI presenting within the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority from June 2007 to September 2013 were included (n = 2041). Primary analysis was performed by care component phase: Phase 1, regionalization of the STEMI program (n = 278, June 2007 to May 2008); Phase 2, introduction of pre-hospital ECGs (n = 979, May 2008 to May 2011); and Phase 3, implementation of an inter-facility transfer protocol for primary PCI (pPCI) (n = 784, May 2011 to September 2013). Secondary analysis compared PCI capable vs. PCI non-capable hospitals. Results: Clinical characteristics were similar across phases. Median first medical contac...
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".