MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043179579 · doi:10.2196/20974

Diagnostic Model for In-Hospital Bleeding in Patients with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Algorithm Development and Validation

2020· article· en· W3043179579 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yong Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNomogramLogistic regressionMyocardial infarctionOdds ratioInternal medicineEmergency medicineOddsEmergency department

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bleeding complications in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have been associated with increased risk of subsequent adverse consequences. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to develop and externally validate a diagnostic model of in-hospital bleeding. METHODS: We performed multivariate logistic regression of a cohort for hospitalized patients with acute STEMI in the emergency department of a university hospital. Participants: The model development data set was obtained from 4262 hospitalized patients with acute STEMI from January 2002 to December 2013. A set of 6015 hospitalized patients with acute STEMI from January 2014 to August 2019 were used for external validation. We used logistic regression analysis to analyze the risk factors of in-hospital bleeding in the development data set. We developed a diagnostic model of in-hospital bleeding and constructed a nomogram. We assessed the predictive performance of the diagnostic model in the validation data sets by examining measures of discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS: In-hospital bleeding occurred in 112 of 4262 participants (2.6%) in the development data set. The strongest predictors of in-hospital bleeding were advanced age and high Killip classification. Logistic regression analysis showed differences between the groups with and without in-hospital bleeding in age (odds ratio [OR] 1.047, 95% CI 1.029-1.066; P<.001), Killip III (OR 3.265, 95% CI 2.008-5.31; P<.001), and Killip IV (OR 5.133, 95% CI 3.196-8.242; P<.001). We developed a diagnostic model of in-hospital bleeding. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.777 (SD 0.021, 95% CI 0.73576-0.81823). We constructed a nomogram based on age and Killip classification. In-hospital bleeding occurred in 117 of 6015 participants (1.9%) in the validation data set. The AUC was 0.7234 (SD 0.0252, 95% CI 0.67392-0.77289). CONCLUSIONS: We developed and externally validated a diagnostic model of in-hospital bleeding in patients with acute STEMI. The discrimination, calibration, and DCA of the model were found to be satisfactory. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR.org ChiCTR1900027578; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=45926.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207