MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786078697 · doi:10.14740/cr620w

Diagnostic Value of D-Dimer in Acute Myocardial Infarction Among Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome

2018· article· en· W2786078697 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hamidreza Reihani, Alireza Sepehri Shamloo, Assadollah Keshmiri

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute coronary syndromeD-dimerInternal medicineUnstable anginaMyocardial infarctionCardiologyReceiver operating characteristicTroponinDyslipidemiaTroponin TDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The role of D-dimer as a diagnostic marker in myocardial infarction (MI) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is still a question. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of D-dimer in the diagnosis of AMI in patients suspected with ACS. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on patients suspected with ACS. Serial standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), D-dimer, and troponin tests were done for all the patients. According to the examinations, ECG changes, and troponin, patients were allocated into two groups of MI and unstable angina (UA). Chi-square, independent t -test, and Pearson correlation test were used by SPSS ver, 17. Cut-off point of D-dimer for MI diagnosis was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: Seventy-five patients with a mean age of 63.1 ± 9.75 years were studied in two groups of MI (n = 34) and UA (n = 41). Patients were homogeneous based on age, gender, and risk factors for diabetes and dyslipidemia. D-dimer in patients with MI patients was higher than in patients with UA (P = 0.001). The optimal cut-off point of D-dimer for diagnosis of MI was 548 mEq/L with sensitivity and specifity of 63.4% and 91.2%, respectively. Conclusions: Based on the results of this study, it seems that the measurement of D-dimer serum level can be appropriate as a marker with high sensitivity and relatively high specificity for differentiating MI from UA in patients with suspected ACS. Cardiol Res. 2018;9(1):17-21 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cr620w 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
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

Citations59
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207