MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211591168 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2021.766996

Cancer and Infective Endocarditis: Characteristics and Prognostic Impact

2021· article· en· W3211591168 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard Cosyns, Bram Roosens, Patrizio Lancellotti, Cécile Laroche, Raluca Dulgheru, Valentina Scheggi, Isidre Vilacosta, Agnès Pasquet, Cornelia Piper, Graciela Reyes, E Mahfouz, Zhanna Kobalava, Lionel Piroth, Jarosław D. Kasprzak, Antonella Moreo, Jean‐François Faucher, Julien Ternacle, Marwa Meshaal, Aldo P. Maggioni, Bernard Iung, Gilbert Habib

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
FundersAbbott VascularNovartis PharmaEuropean Association of Cardiovascular ImagingServierBayerGedeon RichterBoston Scientific CorporationEuropean Society of CardiologyDaiichi Sankyo EuropeSanofiAmgenPfizerBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyAstraZenecaResMed
KeywordsMedicineCancerHeart failureInternal medicineInfective endocarditisCohortObservational studySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The interplay between cancer and IE has become of increasing interest. This study sought to assess the prevalence, baseline characteristics, management, and outcomes of IE cancer patients in the ESC EORP EURO-ENDO registry. Methods: Three thousand and eighty-five patients with IE were identified based on the ESC 2015 criteria. Three hundred and fifty-nine (11.6%) IE cancer patients were compared to 2,726 (88.4%) cancer-free IE patients. Results: In cancer patients, IE was mostly community-acquired (74.8%). The most frequently identified microorganisms were S. aureus (25.4%) and Enterococci (23.8%). The most frequent complications were acute renal failure (25.9%), embolic events (21.7%) and congestive heart failure (18.1%). Theoretical indication for cardiac surgery was not significantly different between groups (65.5 vs. 69.8%, P = 0.091), but was effectively less performed when indicated in IE patients with cancer (65.5 vs. 75.0%, P = 0.002). Compared to cancer-free IE patients, in-hospital and 1-year mortality occurred in 23.4 vs. 16.1%, P = 0.006, and 18.0 vs. 10.2%; P < 0.001, respectively. In IE cancer patients, predictors of mortality by multivariate analysis were creatinine > 2 mg/dL, congestive heart failure and unperformed cardiac surgery (when indicated). Conclusions: Cancer in IE patients is common and associated with a worse outcome. This large, observational cohort provides new insights concerning the contemporary profile, management, and clinical outcomes of IE cancer patients across a wide range of countries.

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 score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicInfective Endocarditis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207