MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280531283 · doi:10.1097/shk.0000000000001921

A Comprehensive Appraisal of Risk Prediction Models for Cardiogenic Shock

2022· review· en· W4280531283 on OpenAlexaff
Anusha Ganapati Bhat, Sean van Diepen, Jason N. Katz, Ashequl Islam, Benham N. Tehrani, Alexander G. Truesdell, Navin K. Kapur, David R. Holmes, Venugopal Menon, Wissam Jaber, William J. Nicholson, David Zhao, Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula

Bibliographic record

VenueShock · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiogenic shockRisk stratificationMedicineMyocardial infarctionIntensive care medicineRevascularizationCardiologyShock (circulatory)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Despite advances in early revascularization, percutaneous hemodynamic support platforms, and systems of care, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains associated with a mortality rate higher than 50%. Several risk stratification models have been derived since the 1990 s to identify patients at high risk of adverse outcomes. Still, limited information is available on the differences between scoring systems and their relative applicability to both acute myocardial infarction and advanced decompensated heart failure CS. Thus, we reviewed the similarities, differences, and limitations of published CS risk prediction models and herein discuss their suitability to the contemporary management of CS care.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShockSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207