MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802129485 · doi:10.1136/emermed-2017-207081

Application of outpatient cardiac testing among emergency department patients with syncope

2018· article· en· W2802129485 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Olivia Cook, Muhammad Mukarram, Soo-Min Kim, K. Arcot, Marie‐Joe Nemnom, Monica Taljaard, Marco L.A. Sivilotti, Brian H. Rowe, Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy

Bibliographic record

VenueEmergency Medicine Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaQueen's UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPhysicians' Services Incorporated Foundation
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentOutpatient clinicMyocardial infarctionReferralEmergency medicineProspective cohort studyInternal medicineHolter monitorStroke (engine)Syncope (phonology)CohortAdverse effectCardiologyElectrocardiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: 2.6% of ED syncope patients will suffer cardiac serious adverse events (SAEs) within 30 days of disposition, and outpatient cardiac testing can improve patient safety. The objective is to determine whether outpatient cardiac testing for ED syncope patients is being appropriately ordered after discharge. To this end, we describe the proportion of high-risk and non-high (low and medium)-risk ED syncope patients as per the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) who have a SAE after ED discharge, and the proportion referred for outpatient cardiac testing. METHODS: Our multicentre prospective cohort study enrolled adult syncope patients between 2010 and 2014 in five academic EDs. We collected patient characteristics, disposition, CSRS predictors, outpatient referrals and testing results (Holter, echocardiography), and 30-day adjudicated SAE (death due to unknown/cardiac cause, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia and structural heart disease). We used descriptive statistics (mean, SD) to report our results. RESULTS: Of 3584 enrolled patients (mean age 50.9 years, 57.7% women), 800 patients (22.3%) received an outpatient referral. Of these 800 patients, 40.3% of the non-high-risk patients (305/756) and 54.5% of the high-risk patients (24/44) received outpatient cardiac testing. Of all patients who received cardiac testing, five (1.5%; 95% CI 0.6% to 3.5%) suffered outpatient SAE (60.0% arrhythmias). Of all patients who did not receive cardiac testing, four patients (0.9%; 95% CI 0.3% to 2.2%) suffered SAE (all arrhythmias). Of the 20 (45.5%) high-risk patients who did not receive testing, two patients (10.0%; 95% CI 2.8% to 30.1%) suffered arrhythmias outside the hospital, while among the 451 (59.7%) non-high-risk patients, only two (0.4%; 95% CI 0.1% to 1.6%) suffered outpatient arrhythmias. CONCLUSION: Outpatient cardiac testing is largely underused, especially among high-risk ED syncope patients. Better guidelines for outpatient cardiac testing are needed, as the practice is highly variable and mismatched with patient risk.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmergency Medicine JournalSame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207