Prevalence and Clinical Implication of Wellens’ Sign in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Symmetrically inverted or biphasic T waves in anterior precordial leads, Wellens' sign, have been shown to represent impending infarction of left anterior descending (LAD) territory among unstable angina patients in the studies published more than 3 decades ago, when non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) was not a recognized entity. The clinical implication of Wellens' sign in the contemporary NSTEMI cohort has not been clarified. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all NSTEMI patients who underwent coronary angiography between January 2013 and June 2014. Wellens' sign was defined as either symmetrically inverted T waves (≥ 0.10 mV) or biphasic T waves in both leads V2 and V3. Coronary angiograms were reviewed and culprit lesions were determined for each patient. RESULTS: A total of 274 patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 24 (8.8%) had Wellens' sign. Among these 24 patients, 16 had a LAD culprit (eight proximal), two had a non-LAD culprit, and six had non-obstructive coronary artery disease. Patients with Wellens' sign were more likely to have LAD culprit (66.7% vs. 19.6%, P < 0.001) and proximal LAD culprit (33.3% vs. 14.4%, P = 0.035) than those without it. Wellens' sign had a sensitivity of 24.6% and a specificity of 96.2% to predict LAD culprit. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed that: 1) Wellens' sign was seen in 8.8% of the patients with NSTEMI; 2) Two-thirds of patients with Wellens' sign had LAD culprit and one-third had proximal LAD culprit; and 3) Sensitivity and specificity of Wellens' sign to predict LAD culprit were 24.6% and 96.2%, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".