MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403782298

Prognostic use of cardiac troponin T and troponin I in patients with heart failure.

2003· article· en· W2403782298 on OpenAlexaff
Jeff S. Healey, Richard F. Davies, Stuart Smith, Ross A. Davies, Daylily S Ooi

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTroponin complexInternal medicineTroponin ICardiologyHeart failureTroponinCreatinineMyocardial infarction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Troponin T (cTnT) and troponin I (cTnI) are present in the sera of some heart failure (HF) patients and have potential importance as prognostic markers. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the prognostic value of cTnT and cTnI in well-characterized HF patients and clarify their relationship to other clinical markers of HF severity. METHODS: cTnT and cTnI were measured in 78 HF patients (45 inpatients, 33 outpatients) who were followed up prospectively for 12 months. RESULTS: Plasma cTnT (> or =0.02 ng/mL) and cTnI (> or =0.3 ng/mL) were detected in 51% and 46% of patients, respectively. These patients were more likely to be inpatients (70% versus 45% for cTnT, 75% versus 43% for cTnI, P<0.05 for both), have a higher plasma creatinine (153 versus 119 micromol/L for cTnT; 157 versus 118 micromol/L for cTnI, P<0.05) and lower plasma sodium (134 versus 138 mmol/L for both, P<0.05). At 12 months, they were more likely to have died or undergone cardiac transplantation (41% versus 14%, P=0.01 for cTnT; 43% versus 15%, P=0.004 for cTnI). After adjustment for New York Heart Association class, plasma sodium and inpatient status, a significant association with events was still evident for both troponins. CONCLUSIONS: Both cTnT and cTnI are strongly associated with other clinical indicators of HF severity and remain independent predictors of prognosis after adjustment for these factors. These results indicate a potential role for cTnT and cTnI in the clinical management of HF patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations40
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207