MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176034296 · doi:10.25011/cim.v44i2.36273

Neutrophil Counts Help Predict Free Wall Rupture Following St-elevation Myocardial Infarction

2021· article· en· W3176034296 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wei Gong, Siyi Li, Yan Yan, Hui Ai, Xiao Wang, Guanqi Zhao, Xin Huang, Shaoping Nie

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBeijing Municipal Administration of HospitalsBeijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Clinical Medicine Development of Special Funding SupportNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionCardiologyInternal medicineConfidence intervalOdds ratio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Free wall rupture (FWR) is a lethal complication after acute myocardial infarction; however, the un-derlying mechanisms of FWR are unclear. This study analyzes the relationship between neutrophil counts and FWR following ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS: The case group was STEMI patients with FWR and the control group was STEMI patients without FWR (case-control ratio was 1:4). The demographic data, clinical manifestation and laboratory test results were retrospectively collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Of a total of 6,712 consecutive STEMI patients, 78 patients (1.2%) had FWR. Compared with STEMI patients, patients with FWR were older and more likely to be female with an anterior infarct. White blood cell (WBC) counts were significantly higher in the FWR group. Moreover, we found that the elevated neutrophil counts mainly accounted for the elevated WBC counts. There was also a correlation between the age and neu-trophil counts (P=0.0109); as patient age increased, neutrophil counts decreased (P=0.0387). We also found no correlation between neutrophil counts and the time between myocardial infarction attack and FWR; however, when dividing these patients into FWR ≤48 h after admission to hospital for STEMI and FWR >48 h, there was a significant difference in neutrophil counts (P=0.0196). Furthermore, the results of logistic regression analy-sis showed that increased neutrophil was an independent risk factor for FWR (odds ratio: 2.404, confidence interval: 1.055-5.477). CONCLUSION: Elevated neutrophil counts were found to be the main cause of differences in WBC counts be-tween FWR and STEMI. Elevated neutrophil was an independent risk factor for FWR. This study provided clues for further research and development of therapeutics for the prevention of FWR.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicineSame topicCardiac Structural Anomalies and RepairFrench-language works237,207