MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2675076360 · doi:10.1002/clc.22742

The value of electrocardiography in prognosticating clinical deterioration and mortality in acute pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2017· review· en· W2675076360 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cardiology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoKingston General HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismElectrocardiographyMeta-analysisCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of electrocardiography (ECG) in prognosticating pulmonary embolism (PE) is increasingly recognized. ECG is quickly interpretable, noninvasive, inexpensive, and available in remote areas. We hypothesized that ECG can provide useful information about PE prognostication. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, abstracts, conference proceedings, and reference lists through February 2017. Eligible studies used ECG to prognosticate for the main outcomes of death and clinical deterioration or escalation of therapy. Two authors independently selected studies; disagreement was resolved by consensus. Ad hoc piloted forms were used to extract data and assess risk of bias. We used a random‐effects model to pool relevant data in meta‐analysis with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs); all other data were synthesized qualitatively. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 value. We included 39 studies (9198 patients) in the systematic review. There was agreement in study selection (κ: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86‐0.96). Most studies were retrospective; some did not appropriately control for confounders. ECG signs that were good predictors of a negative outcome included S1Q3T3 (OR: 3.38, 95% CI: 2.46‐4.66, P < 0.001), complete right bundle branch block (OR: 3.90, 95% CI: 2.46‐6.20, P < 0.001), T‐wave inversion (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.19‐2.21, P = 0.002), right axis deviation (OR: 3.24, 95% CI: 1.86‐5.64, P < 0.001), and atrial fibrillation (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.45‐2.67, P < 0.001) for in‐hospital mortality. Several ischemic patterns also were significantly predictive. Our conclusion is that ECG is potentially valuable in prognostication of acute PE.

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.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.304 · 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