Pro-Con Debate: Cardiac Troponin Measurement as Part of Routine Follow-up of Myocardial Damage Following Noncardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elevated troponin levels within 3 days of surgery, independent of the presence of symptoms, are strongly linked to increased risk of short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. However, the value of screening with troponin measurements is controversial. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines on perioperative cardiac risk assessment and management for patients who undergo noncardiac surgery recommends measuring daily troponin for 48 to 72 hours after surgery in high-risk patients. Nevertheless, others doubt this recommendation, in part because postoperative elevated levels of troponin describe very little in terms of disease or event-specific pathogenesis and etiology, and thus, tailoring an intervention remains a challenge. This Pro-Con debate offers evidence-based data to stimulate physician understanding of daily practice and its significance in this matter, and assist in determining whether to use (Pro) or not to use (Con) this surveillance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.064 | 0.235 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".