MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2767355864 · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.17488

Association of High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin I Concentration With Cardiac Outcomes in Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome

2017· review· en· W2767355864 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew R. Chapman, Kuan Ken Lee, David McAllister, Louise Cullen, Jaimi Greenslade, William Parsonage, Andrew Worster, Peter A. Kavsak, Stefan Blankenberg, Franz–Josef Neumann, Nils A. Sörensen, Dirk Westermann, Madelon M. Buijs, Gerard Verdel, John W. Pickering, Martin Than, Raphael Twerenbold, Patrick Badertscher, Zaid Sabti, Christian Mueller, Atul Anand, Philip D Adamson, Fiona E. Strachan, Amy V. Ferry, Dennis Sandeman, Alasdair Gray, Richard Body, Brian Keevil, Edward Carlton, Kim Greaves, Frederick K. Korley, Thomas S. Metkus, Yader Sandoval, Fred S. Apple, David E. Newby, Anoop Shah, Nicholas L. Mills

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBritish Heart FoundationWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionAcute coronary syndromeInternal medicineTroponinCardiologyProspective cohort studyMyocardial infarction diagnosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I testing is widely used to evaluate patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. A cardiac troponin concentration of less than 5 ng/L identifies patients at presentation as low risk, but the optimal threshold is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the performance of a cardiac troponin I threshold of 5 ng/L at presentation as a risk stratification tool in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. Data Sources: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases from January 1, 2006, to March 18, 2017. Study Selection: Prospective studies measuring high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I concentrations in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome in which the diagnosis was adjudicated according to the universal definition of myocardial infarction. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The systematic review identified 19 cohorts. Individual patient-level data were obtained from the corresponding authors of 17 cohorts, with aggregate data from 2 cohorts. Meta-estimates for primary and secondary outcomes were derived using a binomial-normal random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was myocardial infarction or cardiac death at 30 days. Performance was evaluated in subgroups and across a range of troponin concentrations (2-16 ng/L) using individual patient data. Results: Of 11 845 articles identified, 104 underwent full-text review, and 19 cohorts from 9 countries were included. Among 22 457 patients included in the meta-analysis (mean age, 62 [SD, 15.5] years; n = 9329 women [41.5%]), the primary outcome occurred in 2786 (12.4%). Cardiac troponin I concentrations were less than 5 ng/L at presentation in 11 012 patients (49%), in whom there were 60 missed index or 30-day events (59 index myocardial infarctions, 1 myocardial infarction at 30 days, and no cardiac deaths at 30 days). This resulted in a negative predictive value of 99.5% (95% CI, 99.3%-99.6%) for the primary outcome. There were no cardiac deaths at 30 days and 7 (0.1%) at 1 year, with a negative predictive value of 99.9% (95% CI, 99.7%-99.9%) for cardiac death. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome, a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I concentration of less than 5 ng/L identified those at low risk of myocardial infarction or cardiac death within 30 days. Further research is needed to understand the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of this approach to risk stratification.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.012
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.296 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations249
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA→Same topicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research→French-language works237,207→