MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886403556 · doi:10.14740/cr763w

Usefulness of the Whole Blood Passage Time as a Predictor of Primary Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Traditional Cardiovascular Risk Factors

2018· article· en· W2886403556 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Takashi Hitsumoto

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood properties and coagulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMaceInternal medicineHazard ratioConfidence intervalProspective cohort studyCardiologyProportional hazards modelRisk factorBlood pressureMyocardial infarctionPercutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recent clinical studies have reported that impaired hemorheology is a significant cardiovascular risk factor, but there has been no prospective study of its relationship with cardiovascular events. The aim of this prospective study was to assess the efficacy of whole blood passage time (WBPT), measured by a microchannel array flow analyzer (MC-FAN), as a predictor of primary cardiovascular events in patients with traditional cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: The study enrolled 1,134 outpatients with traditional cardiovascular risk factors but no history of cardiovascular events (438 men and 696 women; mean ± standard deviation age, 67 ± 11 years). Based on the value of WBPT, the patients were assigned to one of three groups: L (low, WBPT < 50 s; n = 499), M (medium, WBPT 50 - 70 s; n = 295), or H (high, WBPT > 70 s; n = 340). The utility of the WBPT as a predictor of primary cardiovascular events was evaluated. RESULTS: During the follow-up period (median 81.9 months), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) occurred in 95 cases (L, 21 cases (4.2%); M, 24 cases (8.1%); H, 50 cases (14.7%); P < 0.001, log-rank test). In multivariate Cox regression analyses, the risk for MACE was significantly higher in group H than in group L (hazard ratio, 2.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.31 - 3.20; P < 0.01). A WBPT cut-off of 72.4 s yielded the largest area under the curve of 0.705 (95% confidence interval: 0.678 - 0.732), with a sensitivity of 51.7% and specificity of 85.4% for discriminating between those who did and did not experience MACE during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: This study showed that WBPT evaluated by a MC-FAN was a predictor of primary cardiovascular events in patients with traditional cardiovascular risk factors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.200 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicBlood properties and coagulationFrench-language works237,207