MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602260237 · doi:10.1177/2048872617700871

Pulse pressure in acute coronary syndromes: Comparative prognostic significance with systolic blood pressure

2017· article· en· W2602260237 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nigel S. Tan, Bradley Sarak, Keith A.A. Fox, David Brieger, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Chris P Gale, Deepak L. Bhatt, Frederick A. Spencer, François Grondin, Shaun G. Goodman, Andrew T. Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular Care · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsCanadian Heart Research CentreThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstituteCégep de LévisMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaSanofi
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicinePulse pressureBlood pressureQuartileCardiologyConfidence intervalMyocardial infarctionAcute coronary syndromeOdds ratio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Pulse pressure is a readily available vital sign that has been shown to independently predict outcomes in several cardiovascular disease states. We investigated the prognostic significance of pulse pressure (PP) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) among patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Methods: A total of 14,514 patients with ACS in the prospective, multicentre Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE), expanded GRACE (GRACE-2) and Canadian Registry of Acute Coronary Events (CANRACE) were stratified by initial PP on presentation. Patient characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were compared by PP quartiles and the independent prognostic significance of PP for in-hospital mortality was quantified. We compared the discriminative ability (c-statistic) of models incorporating either PP or SBP. Results: Patients with higher PPs were older, more frequently female and had higher prevalence rates of conventional cardiovascular risk factors (all p < 0.01). Lower PP was associated with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction presentation, higher GRACE risk scores and higher rates of adverse in-hospital outcomes ( p < 0.001). PP was strongly correlated with SBP (Pearson’s correlation coefficient = 0.79, p < 0.001). After adjustment for other GRACE risk model predictors, lower PP was independently associated with in-hospital mortality (first vs. fourth quartile [reference]: adjusted odds ratio 2.57, 95% confidence interval 1.80–3.67). The c-statistic was slightly higher for the multivariable model incorporating SBP as compared to the model with PP (0.868 vs. 0.864, respectively, p = 0.028) for in-hospital mortality. Conclusion: Higher presenting PP is associated with increased age and more prevalent cardiovascular risk factors, whereas patients with lower PP present with worse clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes. Lower PP is an independent adverse prognosticator in ACS. However, PP did not improve the discriminatory performance of the GRACE risk score compared with SBP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular CareSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207