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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maria Christiane Valéria Braga Braile-Sternieri, Eliana Migliorini Mustafa, Victor Rodrigues Ribeiro Ferreira, Sofia Braile Sabino, Giovanni Braile Sternieri, Lúcia Angélica Buffulin de Faria, Bethina Canaroli Sbardellini, C. Queiroz, Domingo Marcolino Braile, Idiberto José Zotarelli Filho

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.

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)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.011
Bibliometrics0.0170.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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

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 designSystematic review
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicCardiac Structural Anomalies and RepairFrench-language works237,207