MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800576954 · doi:10.14740/cr715w

Main Considerations of Cardiogenic Shock and Its Predictors: Systematic Review

2018· review· en· W2800576954 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockMyocardial infarctionCardiologyInternal medicineTroponinAnginaShock (circulatory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mortality rate of post-infarction cardiogenic shock (CS) was 80.0-90.0%. Recent studies show a significant reduction of hospital mortality to approximately 50.0%. CS is defined as systemic tissue hypoperfusion resulting from systolic and/or diastolic heart dysfunction, the main cause of which is acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The main predictors are biological markers such as troponin, CKMB and lactate. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis is performed in order to present and correlate the main literary findings on CS and its evolution with possible changes in biomarkers such as troponin, lactate and CKMB. After criteria of literary search with the use of the mesh terms: cardiogenic shock; acute myocardial infarction; biomarkers; troponin; CKMB; lactate; clinical trials and use of the bouleanos “and” between the mesh terms and “or” among the historical findings. In the main databases such as Pubmed, Medline, Bireme, EBSCO, Scielo, etc., a total of 96 papers that were submitted to the eligibility analysis were collated and, after that, 41 studies were selected, following the rules of systematic review - PRISMA (Transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyzes-http://www.prisma-statement.org/). Some risk factors for its development in AMI are advanced age, female gender, anterior wall infarction, diabetes mellitus, systemic arterial hypertension, previous history of infarction and angina. The CS associated with AMI depends on its extent and its complications, being the main ones: mitral regurgitation, rupture of the interventricular septum and rupture of the free wall of the left ventricule. The diagnosis is based on the clinical manifestations, such as mental confusion, oliguria, hypotension, tachycardia, fine pulse, sweating, and cold extremities; in hemodynamic aspects: systolic blood pressure was < 90.0 mm Hg or 30 mm Hg below baseline, pulmonary capillary pressure was > 18.0 mm Hg and cardiac index was < 2.2 L/min/m 2 . Laboratory and imaging exams should be requested to evaluate the possible etiology of CS, its systemic repercussions and comorbidities. The treatment aims at the rapid reestablishment of the blood flow in the affected artery, to improve the patient’s prognosis. The biomarkers dosage in the daily clinical practice of the different cardiological centers can facilitate the diagnosis and the conduction of the dubious cases and the best evaluation of the degree of myocardial suffering after CS. Cardiol Res. 2018;9(2):75-82 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cr715w

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.441
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