MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110589313 · doi:10.1093/clinchem/hvaa218

Physicians Should Obtain Perioperative Cardiac Troponin Measurements in At-Risk Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery

2020· review· en· W3110589313 on OpenAlexaff
Flávia K. Borges, P.J. Devereaux

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersRoche DiagnosticsAbbott DiagnosticsOctapharmaStrykerSiemensBayerAstraZenecaBoehringer Ingelheim
KeywordsPerioperativeMedicineTroponinCardiologyInternal medicineSurgeryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surgery is common; the average American will undergo 7 operations during their lifetime (1). Although surgery has the potential to improve and prolong the quality and duration of life, postoperative death is the third leading cause of death worldwide (2). Approximately half of perioperative deaths are vascular, and myocardial ischemic injuries are the most common cause of perioperative vascular deaths (3). Most perioperative myocardial ischemic injuries are clinically asymptomatic, and without troponin monitoring after noncardiac surgery, these prognostically important complications will go unrecognized (4). Here, we review and comment on the evidence for monitoring perioperative troponin measurements in at-risk patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. In a 1938 publication, Master and colleagues reported a case series of patients who had perioperative myocardial infarctions (MI), and 60% of the patients did not experience ischemic pain (5). The authors stated the lack of ischemic symptoms, “may be accounted for, in part, by the liberal use of narcotics and sedatives after operation” (5). This study, from over 80 years ago, identified the challenge in diagnosing perioperative MI (i.e., most events are asymptomatic).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical ChemistrySame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207