MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123240165 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2021.01.009

Impact of STEMI Diagnosis and Catheterization Laboratory Activation Systems on Sex- and Age-Based Differences in Treatment Delay

2021· article· en· W3123240165 on OpenAlexafffund
Christine Pacheco, Laurie‐Anne Boivin‐Proulx, Alexandra Bastiany, Alexis Matteau, Samer Mansour, François Gobeil, Oana-Maria Simion, A. Kokis, C. Noel Bairey Merz, Brian J. Potter

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences CentreHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsMedicineCohortMyocardial infarctionRetrospective cohort studyReferralInternal medicineCohort studyCardiac catheterizationEmergency medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Women and the elderly with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) experience longer treatment delays despite prehospital STEMI diagnosis and catheterization laboratory activation systems. It is not known what role specific STEMI referral systems might play in mediating this gap in care. We therefore examined sex- and age-based differences in STEMI treatment delay (TD) in different STEMI activation systems. Methods This observational comparative effectiveness study comprised 3 retrospective STEMI cohorts: a traditional hospital-based activation cohort (Cohort 1), an automated "physician-blind" prehospital activation cohort (Cohort 2), and a prehospital activation with real-time physician oversight cohort (Cohort 3). Outcomes of interest included sex and age group (< or ≥ 75 years) differences in suboptimal (> 90 minutes) first medical contact-to-device time (FMC-to-device) within each cohort, as well as independent predictors of suboptimal FMC-to-device and in-hospital mortality across cohorts. Results Five hundred-sixty STEMI activations were analyzed. In Cohort 1 (n = 179), women and those ≥ 75 were more likely to experience suboptimal FMC-to-device times (78.7% vs 36.4%, P = 0.02 and 85.0% vs 58.3%, < 0.01, respectively). Similar findings were observed in Cohort 3 (n = 109) (53.5% vs 32.9%, 56.5% vs 33.3%, respectively; P = 0.05, for both). In Cohort 2 (n = 272), however, there was no significant age-based difference (30.4% vs 21.7%, P = 0.18), and the gap was numerically lower but still significant for women (32.1% vs 20.1%, P = 0.04). When examining prehospital activation cohorts only, female sex ( P = 0.03), off-hours presentation ( P < 0.01), and physician oversight ( P < 0.01) were independent predictors of longer FMC-to-device times. Age ≥ 75 ( P < 0.01), Killip class ( P < 0.01), and female sex ( P = 0.04) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Conclusions Automated "physician-blind" STEMI activation was associated with a reduced TD gap in women and the elderly, suggesting possible systemic bias. Appropriately powered confirmatory studies are required, but incorporating automated diagnosis and catheterization laboratory activation may be a solution to treatment gaps in STEMI care.

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)0.010
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCJC OpenSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207