MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 12923: Lack of Concordance Between Parameters Defining Cardiogenic Shock in Patients With ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction

2021· article· en· W3215780690 on OpenAlexaff
Triston Eastman, Mirna Ragheb, Mullein Thorleifson, Brett Hiebert, Kunal Minhas, Malek Kass, Amir Ravandi, Ashish Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockCardiologyInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionConcordancePulmonary wedge pressurePercutaneous coronary interventionBlood pressureInotrope

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In stark contrast to a ~3-5% in-hospital mortality in all comer ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) patients, ~40-50% of STEMI patients complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) die during their index-hospital admission. None of the pharmaco-mechanical circulatory support therapies have demonstrated survival benefit in CS, likely due to our inability to objectively define and identify CS in the “pre-shock” state. As per the current guidelines, CS is defined as either (1) systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≤ 90mmHg, (2) cardiac-index (CI) <1.8 L/min/m 2 or <2.2 L/min/m 2 with inotropic/vasopressor support in presence of pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ≥15 mmHg, and/or (3) lactate >2 mmol/L. These parameters are used interchangeably. however, data comparing these parameters is lacking. Objective: (1) To identify the incidence of CS using the above three parameters, and (2) assess the concordance between these parameters in STEMI patients . Methods: CI (total body impedance method), SBP and lactate were measured pre- and post-primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in consecutive STEMI patients. Results: Sixty-eight STEMI patients (32% female) with a mean age of 65.8 years were recruited. Based upon lactate, CI and SBP the incidence of CS pre-PPCI was 47%, 26% and 17% (Panel-A). Poor concordance was seen between all three parameters. SBP and CI (R 0.466, R 2 0.220; Panel-B), CI and lactate (R -0.228, R 2 0.052; Panel-C), as well as SBP and lactate (R -0.314, R 2 0.098; Panel-D) criteria predominantly identified different patient cohorts, with minimal overlap; demonstrating that these parameters cannot be used interchangeably. Conclusion: Our study is the first to describe poor congruity between the current parameters defining CS. Such limitations raise the need of objectively defining CS so that these high-risk patients can be identified early in the course of CS (pre-CS state), where timely interventions are likely to improve the outcomes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices→French-language works237,207→