MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027355950 · doi:10.1071/hc19059

Study protocol for an observational study to evaluate an accelerated chest pain pathway using point-of-care troponin in New Zealand rural and primary care populations

2020· article· en· W3027355950 on OpenAlexaff
Rory Miller, Joanna M. Young, Garry Nixon, John W. Pickering, Tim Stokes, Robin Turner, Gerard Devlin, Antony Watson, Marc Gutenstein, Tim Norman, Peter M. George, Stephen Du Toit, Martin Than

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Primary Health Care · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Care Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyChest painMyocardial infarctionTroponinAdverse effectEmergency medicineClinical endpointTroponin IPopulationIntensive care medicineRural areaPhysical therapyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPathologyRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Accelerated diagnostic chest pain pathways are used widely in urban New Zealand hospitals. These pathways use laboratory-based troponin assays with good analytical precision. Widespread implementation has not occurred in many of New Zealand's rural hospitals and general practices as they are reliant on point-of-care troponin assays, which are less sensitive and precise. An accelerated chest pain pathway using point-of-care troponin has been adapted for use in rural settings. A pilot study in a low-risk rural population showed no major adverse cardiac events at 30 days. A larger study is required to be confident that the pathway is safe. AIMS To assess the safety and effectiveness of an accelerated chest pain pathway adapted for rural settings and general practice using point-of-care troponin to identify low-risk patients and allow early discharge. METHODS This is a prospective observational study of an accelerated chest pain pathway using point-of-care troponin in rural hospitals and general practices in New Zealand. A total of 1000 patients, of whom we estimate 400 will be low risk, will be enrolled in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome is the proportion of patients identified by the pathway as low risk for a 30-day major adverse cardiac event. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of low-risk patients who were discharged directly from general practice or rural hospitals, the proportion of patients reclassified as having acute myocardial infarction by the pathway and the proportion of patients with low and intermediate risk safely managed in the rural hospital.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.354
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.145 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Primary Health CareSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207