MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 18407: Identifying Patients With Acute Heart Failure who Require a Critical Care Admission: ASCEND-HF Insights

2015· article· en· W3205858751 on OpenAlexaff
I. Raslan, Cynthia M. Westerhout, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Adrian F. Hernandez, Randall C. Starling, Christopher M. O’Connor, Paul W. Armstrong, Sean van Diepen

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCanadian VIGOUR Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureInternal medicineCardiogenic shockCardiologyMyocardial infarctionCoronary care unitMechanical ventilationBlood pressureAcute decompensated heart failureIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The benefit of critical care unit (CCU) admission in acute heart failure (AHF) remains unclear. The risk factors for in-hospital events best managed in a CCU including the need for CCU restricted therapies (including invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, mechanical circulatory support devices, and intravenous vasopressors or vasodilators) have not yet been formulated. The purpose of this study was to develop a clinical prediction model for adverse outcomes or CCU restricted therapies in patients with AHF. Methods: Using data from the ASCEND-HF trial, patients with AHF who did not require critical care related therapies within the preceding 12 hours of randomization were selected. The primary outcome was an in-hospital composite of the requirement of CCU specific therapies, death, myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, resuscitated sudden cardiac death, or ventricular arrhythmias requiring intervention. Model discrimination and calibration were evaluated using the c-index and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, respectively. Results: The study cohort included 4772 patients and the primary composite outcome occurred in 547 (11.5%) patients. A total of 11 variables were independent predictors of the primary composite outcome as follows (Figure): chronic respiratory disease, prior ACE inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker or aldosterone antagonist use, Asian race, body mass index, diastolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, resting dyspnea, hemoglobin, sodium, and blood urea nitrogen. The simplified clinical prediction model demonstrated modest discrimination (c-index= 0.66) and good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit=7.017, p=0.535). Conclusions: In an international dataset of patients with AHF, we derived a clinical prediction describing patients who are likely to need a CCU. This model may be useful as a triage tool to identify patients with AHF who may benefit from admission to a higher acuity CCU.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→