MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803046806 · doi:10.1080/14737159.2018.1476141

Profile of Roche’s Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT blood test (a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assay) for diagnosing myocardial infarction in the emergency department

2018· review· en· W2803046806 on OpenAlexaff
Peter A. Kavsak, James E. Andruchow, Andrew D. McRae, Andrew Worster

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Molecular Diagnostics · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineTroponinCardiologyRoche DiagnosticsTroponin I

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT test (distributed in the United States (US) by Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN) is the first high-sensitivity cardiac troponin test approved for use by the FDA in the US (2017). Areas covered: The test offers clinicians the opportunity for more rapid decision-making for diagnosing myocardial infarction (MI) in the emergency department (ED). The Troponin T Gen 5 STAT test (labeled as TNT-G5ST on the reagent pack) is similar to the Troponin T hs STAT (TNT-HSST) and Troponin T hs (TNT-HS) tests that have been available outside the US since 2009. Collectively, these tests can all be considered as high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) assays. Expert commentary: Studies performed in the US and throughout the world using 0 and 3 h blood draws for hs-cTnT testing in patients with possible MI have reliably achieved a sensitivity of >94% and negative predictive value of ≥99% for MI in the ED setting.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Molecular DiagnosticsSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207