MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

B-Type Natriuretic Peptides and Cardiac Troponins for Diagnosis and Risk-Stratification of Syncope

2019· article· en· W2916768522 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRisk stratificationCardiologyInternal medicineTroponinSyncope (phonology)Natriuretic peptideHeart failureMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The utility of BNP (B-type natriuretic peptide), NT-proBNP (N-terminal proBNP), and hs-cTn (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin) concentrations for diagnosis and risk-stratification of syncope is incompletely understood. Methods: We evaluated the diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of BNP, NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, and hs-cTnI concentrations, alone and against those of clinical assessments, in patients >45-years old presenting with syncope to the emergency department in a prospective diagnostic multicenter study. BNP, NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI concentrations were measured in a blinded fashion. Cardiac syncope, as adjudicated by 2 physicians based on all information available including cardiac work-up and 1-year follow-up, was the diagnostic end point. EGSYS (Evaluation of Guidelines in Syncope Study), a syncope-specific diagnostic score, served as the diagnostic comparator. Death and major adverse cardiac events at 30 and 720 days were the prognostic end points. Major adverse cardiac events were defined as death, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, life-threatening arrhythmia, implantation of pacemaker/implantable cardioverter defibrillator, acute myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, stroke/transient ischemic attack, intracranial bleeding, or valvular surgery. ROSE (Risk Stratification of Syncope in the Emergency Department), OESIL (Osservatorio Epidemiologico della Sincope nel Lazio), SFSR (San Fransisco Syncope Rule), and CSRS (Canadian Syncope Risk Score) served as the prognostic comparators. Results: Among 1538 patients eligible for diagnostic assessment, cardiac syncope was the adjudicated diagnosis in 234 patients (15.2%). BNP, NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, and hs-cTnI were significantly higher in cardiac syncope versus other causes ( P <0.01). The diagnostic accuracy for cardiac syncope, as quantified by the area under the curve, was 0.77 to 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74–0.81) for all 4 biomarkers, and superior to EGSYS (area under the curve, 0.68 [95%-CI 0.65–0.71], P <0.001). Combining BNP/NT-proBNP with hs-cTnT/hs-cTnI further improved diagnostic accuracy to an area under the curve of 0.81 ( P <0.01). BNP, NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, and hs-cTnI cut-offs, achieving predefined thresholds for sensitivity and specificity (95%), allowed for rule-in or rule-out of ≈30% of all patients. A total of 450 major adverse cardiac events occurred during follow-up. The prognostic accuracy of BNP, NT-proBNP, hs-cTnI, and hs-cTnT for major adverse cardiac events was moderate-to-good (area under the curve, 0.75–0.79), superior to ROSE, OESIL, and SFSR, and inferior to CSRS. Conclusions: BNP, NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, and hs-cTnI concentrations provide useful diagnostic and prognostic information in emergency department patients with syncope. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01548352.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.231 · 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