Adherence to NSTEMI Guidelines in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adherence to guidelines for the initial treatment of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction has been thoroughly studied, whereas the study of emergency department (ED) adherence to guidelines for Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction-Acute Coronary Syndrome (NSTEMI-ACS) has been much scarcer. The recommended guidelines for the initial prompt workup and treatment of NSTEMI-ACS remains a challenge. AIM: We studied adherence to guidelines for NSTEMI in the ED. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective study of consecutive patients with NSTEMI admitted to a tertiary hospital and discharged alive between March 2013 and March 2014. ED records were manually reviewed for adherence to prespecified parameters. Cases with sudden death, shock, or type-II NSTEMI were excluded. Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale score system was used for triage in the ED. RESULTS: Adherence rates were 33.3%/24.6% of 240 patients for ECG/troponin obtained within 10/60 minutes receptively and 31.3% for anticoagulation within 15 minutes from diagnosis of ACS. Females were less likely to undergo electrocardiography (P = 0.009) or troponin-level tests within the specified timeframe (P = 0.043). Many cardiovascular risk markers were missed. Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score was not used to risk stratify patients. CONCLUSIONS: Prompt identification and early medical treatment of NSTEMI in the ED is lacking. Better computerized medical history assembly, attention to typical and atypical clinical presentation, and the employment of an appropriate cardiologic risk stratification method may unblind the treating teams at the point of care and improve adherence to NSTEMI guidelines.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".