Prediction of Symptomatic Embolism in Filipinos With Infective Endocarditis Using the Embolic Risk French Calculator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cardioembolic events are life-threatening complications of infective endocarditis (IE). The embolic risk French calculator estimates the embolic risk in IE computed on admission. Variables in this tool include age, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, prior embolism, vegetation length, and Staphylococcus aureus on culture. A computed risk of > 7% was considered high in the development of this tool. Knowledge of this risk applied in our local setting is important to guide clinicians in preventing such catastrophic complications. Among patients with IE, we aim to determine the efficacy of the embolic risk French calculator, using a computed score of > 7%, in predicting major embolic events. Methods: All adults admitted from 2013 to 2016 with definite IE were included. The risk for embolic events was computed on admission. All were monitored for the duration of admission for the occurrence of the primary outcome (any major embolic event: arterial emboli, intracranial hemorrhage, pulmonary infarcts, or aneurysms). Secondary outcomes were: 1) composite of death and embolic events; and 2) death from any cause. Results: Eighty-seven adults with definite IE were included. Majority had a valvular heart disease and preserved ejection fraction (EF). The mitral valve was most commonly involved. Embolic events occurred in 25 (29%). Multivariate analysis identified a high embolic score > 7% (relative risk (RR): 15.12, P < 0.001), vegetation area >=18 mm 2 (RR: 6.39, P < 0.01), and a prior embolism (RR: 5.18, P = 0.018) to be independent predictors of embolic events. For the composite of embolic events and death, independent predictors include a high score of > 7% (RR: 13.56, P < 0.001) and a prior embolus (RR: 13.75, P = 0.002). Independent predictors of death were a high score > 7% (RR: 6.20, P = 0.003) and EF <=45% (RR: 9.91, P = 0.004). Conclusion: Cardioembolic events are more prevalent in our study compared to previous data. The embolic risk French calculator is a useful tool to estimate and predict risk for embolic events and in-hospital mortality. The risk of developing embolic events should be weighed against the risks of early preventive cardiac surgery, as to institute timely and appropriate management. Cardiol Res. 2016;7(4):130-139 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/cr490w Â
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".