Economic Considerations of Early Rule-In/Rule-Out Algorithms for The Diagnosis of Myocardial Infarction in The Emergency Department Using Cardiac Troponin and Glycemic Biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND We have previously demonstrated the utility of a rule-in/rule-out strategy for myocardial infarction (MI) using glycemic biomarkers in combination with cardiac troponin in the emergency department (ED). Given that the cost of assessing patients with possible MI in the ED is increasing, we sought to compare the health services cost of our previously identified early rule-in/rule-out approaches for MI among patients who present to the ED with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS We compared the cost differences between different rule-in/rule-out strategies for MI using presentation cardiac troponin I (cTnI), high-sensitivity cTnI (hs-cTnI), high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), glucose, and/or hemoglobin A1c (Hb A1c) in 1137 ED patients (7-day MI n = 133) as per our previously defined algorithms and compared them with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0-h algorithm-cutoffs. Costs associated with each decision model were obtained from site-specific sources (length of stay) and provincial sources (Ontario Case Costing Initiative). RESULTS Algorithms incorporating cardiac troponin and glucose for early rule-in/rule-out were the most cost effective and clinically safest methods (i.e., ≤1 MI missed) for early decision making, with hs-cTnI and glucose yielding lower costs compared to cTnI and glucose, despite the higher price for the hs-cTnI test. The addition of Hb A1c to the algorithms increased the cost of these algorithms but did not miss any additional patients with MI. Applying the ESC 0-h algorithm-cutoffs for hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT were the most costly. CONCLUSIONS Rule-in/rule-out algorithms incorporating presentation glucose with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin are the safest and most cost-effective options as compared to the ESC 0-h algorithm-cutoffs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".