MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Survival in Patients With Suspected Myocardial Infarction With Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis From the MINOCA Global Collaboration

2021· review· en· W3211740949 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseCardiologyCoronary arteriesArtery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Suspected myocardial infarction (MI) with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) occurs in ≈5% to 10% of patients with MI referred for coronary angiography. The prognosis of these patients may differ to those with MI and obstructive coronary artery disease (MI-CAD) and those without a MI (patients without known history of MI [No-MI]). The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the 12-month all-cause mortality of patients with MINOCA. Methods: Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the terms “MI,” “nonobstructive,” “angiography,” and “prognosis” were searched in PubMed and Embase databases from inception to December 2018, including original, English language MINOCA studies with >100 consecutive patients. Publications with a heterogeneous cohort, unreported coronary stenosis, or exclusively focusing on MINOCA-mimicking conditions, were excluded. Unpublished data were obtained from the MINOCA Global Collaboration. Data were pooled and analyzed using Paule-Mandel, Hartung, Knapp, Sidik & Jonkman, or restricted maximum-likelihood random-effects meta-analysis methodology. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q and I 2 statistics. The primary outcome was 12-month all-cause mortality in patients with MINOCA, with secondary comparisons to MI-CAD and No-MI. Results: The 23 eligible studies yielded 55 369 suspected MINOCA, 485 382 MI-CAD, and 33 074 No-MI. Pooled meta-analysis of 14 MINOCA studies accounting for 30 733 patients revealed an unadjusted 12-month all-cause mortality rate of 3.4% (95% CI, 2.6%–4.2%) and reinfarction (n=27 605; 10 studies) in 2.6% (95% CI, 1.7%–3.5%). MINOCA had a lower 12-month all-cause mortality than those with MI-CAD (3.3% [95% CI, 2.5%–4.1%] versus 5.6% [95% CI, 4.1%–7.0%]; odds ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.52–0.70], P <0.001). In contrast, there was a statistically nonsignificant trend towards increased 12-month all-cause mortality in patients with MINOCA (2.6% [95% CI, 0%–5.9%]) compared with No-MI (0.7% [95% CI, 0.1%–1.3%]; odds ratio, 3.71 [95% CI, 0.58–23.61], P =0.09). Conclusions: In the largest contemporary MINOCA meta-analysis to date, patients with suspected MINOCA had a favorable prognosis compared with MI-CAD, but statistically nonsignificant trend toward worse outcomes compared to those with No-MI. Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ; Unique identifier: CRD42020145356.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.273 · 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