MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4212869155 · doi:10.1161/circ.138.suppl_2.335

Abstract 335: Distinguishing Cardiac From Non-Cardiac Causes of Sudden Death: The Value of Novel Factors to Identify Risk of SCD

2018· article· en· W4212869155 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katherine S. Allan, Theresa Aves, Arnold Pintér, Laurie J. Morrison, Paul Dorian

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSudden cardiac deathEtiologyInternal medicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationCardiologyCause of deathSudden cardiac arrestEmergency medicineDiseaseResuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Identifying those at risk for Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD) is imperative to prevent future events. There may be risk factors (RFs), triggers or warning symptoms preceding the SCD that could help identify those at greatest risk. Methods: This retrospective study included out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) of “no obvious cause” in the Greater Toronto Area, ages 2-45 from 2009-2012. Expert reviewers systematically adjudicated EMS, coroner, autopsy, toxicology and police reports to classify the etiology of arrest as SCD or SD due to non-cardiac etiologies (non-cardiac SDs). We compared past medical history, triggers and symptoms in the adjudicated SCD and non-cardiac SD groups and assessed their potential associations with SCD. Results: 872 OHCAs were classified as SCDs (488; 56%) or non-cardiac SDs (384; 44%). The SCDs were mostly CAD (203; 41.6%), structural (155; 31.8%), congenital (8; 1.6%) and primary arrhythmic (76; 15.6%). The non-cardiac SDs were due to acute infection (67; 17.4%), metabolic (75, 19.5%), epilepsy (69, 18.0%), vascular (106; 27.6%) and respiratory (35, 9.1%). Cardiac RFs and exercise as a trigger were observed significantly more in SCDs vs. non-cardiac SDs (Table 1). Symptoms ≤24 hours prior were similar between groups except for chest pain and diaphoresis. After adjusting for patient and resuscitation variables, factors associated with increased risk of SCD were: increasing age (OR 1.03; 95%CI 1.01-1.05), male sex (OR 1.90; 95%CI 1.30-2.70), HTN (OR 1.80; 95%CI 1.11-3.10), smoking (1.60; 95%CI 1.02-2.60), public location (OR 2.10; 95%CI 1.13-3.80), exercise (OR 3.0 95%CI 1.56-5.59) and chest pain ≤24 hours prior (OR 2.90 95%CI 1.30-6.42). Conclusion: Many young SCDs have previously diagnosed cardiac RFs and acute symptoms suggestive of ischemia prior to their event. These findings highlight the potential value of better public awareness in the younger age group for signs and symptoms of ischemia and potential risk for SCD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→