MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical profiles and outcomes of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in young adults in a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia

2021· article· en· W3209177931 on OpenAlexaff
Haitham Sakr, Ahmed Azazy, Ali Hillani, Mohamed Elsaed Ebada, Abdulrahman Alharbi‎, Saleh Alshalash, Rami M. Abazid, Abdulrahman Algassim

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Medical Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDyslipidemiaMyocardial infarctionOdds ratioCardiogenic shockInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)Confidence intervalPediatricsYoung adultObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical profiles and outcomes of young adults presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, registry between January 2016 and November 2017 for all patients younger than 45 years old who were admitted with STEMI. We compared this study population to a control group of patients aged 45 years and older who were enrolled in the same period. RESULTS: =0.03). CONCLUSION: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in young patients has a favorable outcome. Smoking and dyslipidemia are the main risk factors for STEMI in young individuals. The majority of young patients with dyslipidemia were not aware of their pre-existing condition. Our findings recommend local adaptation and implementation of screening programs for dyslipidemia in the young and the reinforcement of smoking prevention programs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSaudi Medical JournalSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207