MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888958178 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy566.4940

4940Predicting risk at the point of care: NT-proBNP improves performance of the LACE index among patients hospitalized for Heart Failure (HF)

2018· article· en· W2888958178 on OpenAlexaff
Harriette G.C. Van Spall, S F Lee, Tauben Averbuch, Urun Erbas Oz, Manish Maingi, Michael Heffernan, Peter R. Mitoff, Michael C. Tjandrawidjaja, Mohammad I. Zia, K Simek, Liane Porepa, Mohamed Panju, Dennis T. Ko, Stuart J. Connolly

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSouthlake Regional Health CenterSt Joseph's Health CentreHalTechInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesWilliam Osler Health SystemPopulation Health Research InstituteTrillium Health CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureInternal medicineIndex (typography)CardiologyPoint of careIntensive care medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Length of stay, Acuity, Comorbidities, and Emergency department visits (LACE) index can predict 30-d readmission and composite readmission/death in patients hospitalized for HF, but only with modest risk discrimination. Purpose: To assess whether admission or discharge NT-pro-BNP can improve performance of the LACE risk prediction model at the point of care (POC) among patients hospitalized for HF. Methods: This is a sub-study of the Patient-Centered Care Transitions in HF (PACT-HF) multi-center stepped wedge cluster randomized trial, which offered transitional care services to patients hospitalized for HF. We measured LACE and admission + discharge NT-proBNP at the POC. We obtained 30-d outcomes using linkages to administrative databases. We used log-binomial regression models with 30-d all-cause readmission or 30-d composite all-cause readmission/death as the outcome. We measured risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI); model discrimination (C-statistic); and model calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test). We adjusted models for transitional care services, and performed internal validation using bootstrapping.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207