MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P6507Factors associated with troponin elevation and risk of cardiac events in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

2018· article· en· W2903860103 on OpenAlexaff
Peder L. Myhre, Eileen O’Meara, Simon de Denus, Iris E. Beldhuis, Brian Claggett, Petr Jarolı́m, Jean‐Lucien Rouleau, Scott D. Solomon, Marc A. Pfeffer, Akshay S. Desai

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionCardiologyInternal medicineHeart failureTroponinHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Introduction: Cardiac troponins (cTn) are frequently elevated in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and correlate with the risk for death and HF hospitalization. However, identification of factors associated with elevation of cTn concentrations and our understanding of the association of cTn levels with cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are limited. Purpose: To determine the clinical correlates of cTn elevation and the relationship of cTn levels with the risk of specific CV events in patients with HFpEF. Methods: Of 1767 subjects in the TOPCAT trial with symptomatic HFpEF randomized in the Americas, 236 had baseline measurements of high sensitivity troponin I (hs-cTnI) by the Abbott ARCHITECT STAT assay. We identified clinical correlates of hs-cTnI elevation at baseline in multivariable linear regression models and correlated baseline hs-cTnI levels with adjudicated CV outcomes over mean follow-up time of 2.6±1.5 years using multivariable Cox models. Model discrimination was assessed using the Harrell C statistics.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 Journal→Same topicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research→French-language works237,207→