Protocol for the Acute Myocardial Infarction Study in Northeastern China (AMINoC): a real-world prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has become one of the major causes of mortality and morbidity in China. However, little is known about the characteristics, medical care and outcomes of patients with AMI in Northeastern China. The Acute Myocardial Infarction Study in Northeastern China (AMINoC) is aimed at obtaining timely real-world knowledge in terms of characteristics, clinical care and outcomes of patients with AMI and at providing care-quality improvement efforts in Northeastern China. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The AMINoC is a real-world, prospective, multicentre cohort study. The study selected 20 hospitals using stratified cluster sampling from different levels of hospitals among nine districts throughout Jilin Province. Hospitalised patients with a primary diagnosis of AMI in each site are consecutively enrolled for 1 year. Demographic characteristics, clinical data, treatments, outcomes and cost are collected by local investigators. Patient follow-up after discharge is planned for up to 2 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the ethics committee at the Second Hospital of Jilin University. The findings of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and medical conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04451967.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".