MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210564798 · doi:10.1002/ccd.30103

Validation of cardiogenic shock phenotypes in a mixed cardiac intensive care unit population

2022· article· en· W4210564798 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob C. Jentzer, Sabri Soussi, Patrick R. Lawler, Jason Kennedy, Kianoush Kashani

Bibliographic record

VenueCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockCoronary care unitInternal medicineOdds ratioPopulationIntensive care unitCluster (spacecraft)Myocardial infarctionMortality rateCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Proposed phenotypes have recently been identified in cardiogenic shock (CS) populations using unsupervised machine learning clustering methods. We sought to validate these phenotypes in a mixed cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population of patients with CS. METHODS: We included Mayo Clinic CICU patients admitted from 2007 to 2018 with CS. Agnostic K means clustering was used to assign patients to three clusters based on admission values of estimated glomerular filtration rate, bicarbonate, alanine aminotransferase, lactate, platelets, and white blood cell count. In-hospital mortality and 1-year mortality were analyzed using logistic regression and Cox proportional-hazards models, respectively. RESULTS: We included 1498 CS patients with a mean age of 67.8 ± 13.9 years, and 37.1% were females. The acute coronary syndrome was present in 57.3%, and cardiac arrest was present in 34.0%. Patients were assigned to clusters as follows: Cluster 1 (noncongested), 603 (40.2%); Cluster 2 (cardiorenal), 452 (30.2%); and Cluster 3 (hemometabolic), 443 (29.6%). Clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic characteristics differed across clusters, with the greatest illness severity in Cluster 3. Cluster assignment was associated with in-hospital mortality across subgroups. In-hospital mortality was higher in Cluster 3 (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 2.6 vs. Cluster 1 and adjusted OR: 2.0 vs. Cluster 2, both p < 0.001). Adjusted 1-year mortality was incrementally higher in Cluster 3 versus Cluster 2 versus Cluster 1 (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We observed similar phenotypes in CICU patients with CS as previously reported, identifying a gradient in both in-hospital and 1-year mortality by cluster. Identifying these clinical phenotypes can improve mortality risk stratification for CS patients beyond standard measures.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations43
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatheterization and Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207