MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 14420: Outcomes in Women With Cardiogenic Shock: Data From the Critical Care Cardiology Trial Network (CCCTN)

2020· article· en· W3098461957 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Phreaner, Haider Aldiwani, David D. Berg, Jeong‐Gun Park, Jason N. Katz, Sean van Diepen, David A. Morrow, Erin A. Bohula, Lori B. Daniels

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionEjection fractionCardiologyCohortHeart failureTIMICoronary artery diseaseAcute decompensated heart failureConventional PCI

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Although sex-specific differences in treatment and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) have been described, little is known about sex-specific differences in acute decompensated heart failure-related CS (ADHF-CS). Methods: The CCCTN is an investigator-initiated multicenter network of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) in North America. Consecutive admissions (n=8240) to the CICU during annual snapshots (mostly 2 months) were submitted to the coordinating center (TIMI Study Group, Boston, MA). Patients were stratified by sex and type of CS. Adjustments were made for age and SOFA score. Results: Between 2017 and 2019, 1487 admissions were for CS of which 879 (33% women) were for ADHF-CS. In this cohort, age (median 62 y), race, and BMI (median 28 kg/m 2 ) did not differ by sex. Women and men also had similar SOFA and IABP-SHOCK II scores. Women were less likely to have CKD (28% vs 42%, p=<0.001) and CAD (28% vs 45%, p<0.001) but were significantly more likely to have underlying pulmonary disease (23% vs 15%, p<0.01). Although women and men had a similar burden of pre-existing HF (72% vs 75%, p=0.35), women were more likely to have HF with preserved ejection fraction (19% vs. 5%, p<0.001). Women had shorter CICU stays (4.0 vs 5.5 days, p<0.001), and numerically, though not significantly, lower use of pulmonary artery catheters (48% vs 53%, p=0.13) and mechanical circulatory support (28% vs 34%, p=0.11). In-hospital mortality in women with ADHF-CS was significantly higher than in men (39% vs 26%, p<0.001, adj-OR 2.05 (95% CI 1.47-2.86; p<0.001)). In contrast, in-hospital mortality for AMICS did not differ by sex (38% vs 40%, p=0.69). Conclusions: Compared to men, women admitted to the CICU with ADHF-CS had higher mortality despite similar indices of illness severity. The reason(s) behind this difference merit further study.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207