The evaluation of physician patterns of practice in cardiac patients at two British Columbia tertiary referral hospitals.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the patterns of care in patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome or congestive heart failure. DESIGN: A pilot study - retrospective chart review. SETTING: Two British Columbia tertiary referral teaching hospitals. PATIENTS: One hundred patients admitted with stable angina, acute ischemic syndrome or congestive heart failure at each hospital. RESULTS: Patient profiles showed that women at both hospitals were significantly older and had significantly longer lengths of stay than men. Patterns of practice were comparable except when it came to lipid testing and lipid-lowering agents being prescribed to patients at the time of discharge. At hospital A, patients were more likely to have a lipid profile performed compared with patients at hospital B. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of lipid testing to the clinical pathway for patients with myocardial infarction led to more patients at hospital A having a lipid profile performed. The routine assessment of lipid profiles in patients admitted for acute ischemic syndromes led to more aggressive pharmacological treatment with hydroxy-methyl-glutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors - agents that are known to reduce mortality and recurrent infarction. Methods to improve treatment are proposed to help reduce morbidity and/or mortality in patients with ischemic heart disease and congestive heart failure.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".