Performance of the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-Hour, 0/2-Hour, and 0/3-Hour Algorithms for Rapid Triage of Acute Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2020 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend using the 0/1-hour and 0/2-hour algorithms over the 0/3-hour algorithm as the first and second choices of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn)-based strategies for triage of patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI). PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracies of the ESC 0/1-hour, 0/2-hour, and 0/3-hour algorithms. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2020. (PROSPERO: CRD42020216479). STUDY SELECTION: Prospective studies that evaluated the ESC 0/1-hour, 0/2-hour, or 0/3-hour algorithms in adult patients presenting with suspected AMI. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was index AMI. Twenty unique cohorts were identified. Primary data were obtained from investigators of 16 cohorts and aggregate data were extracted from 4 cohorts. Two independent authors assessed each study for methodological quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 32 studies (20 cohorts) with 30 066 patients were analyzed. The 0/1-hour algorithm had a pooled sensitivity of 99.1% (95% CI, 98.5% to 99.5%) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.8% (CI, 99.6% to 99.9%) for ruling out AMI. The 0/2-hour algorithm had a pooled sensitivity of 98.6% (CI, 97.2% to 99.3%) and NPV of 99.6% (CI, 99.4% to 99.8%). The 0/3-hour algorithm had a pooled sensitivity of 93.7% (CI, 87.4% to 97.0%) and NPV of 98.7% (CI, 97.7% to 99.3%). Sensitivity of the 0/3-hour algorithm was attenuated in studies that did not use clinical criteria (GRACE score <140 and pain-free) compared with studies that used clinical criteria (90.2% [CI, 82.9 to 94.6] vs. 98.4% [CI, 88.6 to 99.8]). All 3 algorithms had similar specificities and positive predictive values for ruling in AMI, but heterogeneity across studies was substantial. Diagnostic performance was similar across the hs-cTnT (Elecsys; Roche), hs-cTnI (Architect; Abbott), and hs-cTnI (Centaur/Atellica; Siemens) assays. LIMITATION: Diagnostic accuracy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and cardiac troponin sampling time varied among studies. CONCLUSION: The ESC 0/1-hour and 0/2-hour algorithms have higher sensitivities and NPVs than the 0/3-hour algorithm for index AMI. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Taiwan University Hospital.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".