MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2910469236

Abstract 18273: Frailty and Mortality in Older Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Observations From the NCDR ACTION Registry-GWTG

2017· article· en· W2910469236 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacob A. Udell, Di Lu, Akshay Bagai, John A. Dodson, Nihar R. Desai, Gregg C. Fonarow, Abhinav Goyal, Kirk Garatt, Joseph Lucas, William S. Weintraub, Daniel Forman, Karen P. Alexander, Matthew T. Roe

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionMyocardial infarctionGerontologyEmergency medicineInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Little is known about the prevalence and prognostic impact of patient (pt) frailty on in-hospital mortality in the setting of acute MI, or the optimal way to assess frailty in this setting. Methods: We examined the relationship between frailty and outcomes in acute MI pts ≥65 years from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 in ACTION Registry-GWTG. Three spheres of pre-hospital function (cognition, ambulation, and functional independence) were assessed, and findings were summed in two new ways: (1) ACTION Frailty Scale based on responses to six groups adapted from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale; (2) ACTION Frailty Score derived by summing a rank score of 0-2 assigned for each grade (range 0-6). Associations between frailty status and all-cause mortality were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Among 143,722 acute MI pts at 778 hospitals, 108,059 (75.2%) were fit/well and 6,484 (4.5%) were vulnerable to frailty, while 7,527 (5.2%) had mild...

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)0.004
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→