MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288037337 · doi:10.1111/acem.14571

Hot off the press: <scp>SGEM</scp>#370: Listen to your <scp>HEART</scp> (score) … <scp>MACE</scp> incidence in non–low‐risk patients with known coronary artery disease

2022· article· en· W4288037337 on OpenAlexaff
Corey Heitz, Kirsty Challen, William K. Milne

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaceMedicineCoronary artery diseaseChest painInternal medicineAcute coronary syndromeCardiologyIncidence (geometry)Framingham Risk ScoreTroponinMyocardial infarctionDiseaseConventional PCI

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chest pain is one of the most common presentations to the emergency department (ED), with a high admission rate in prior decades contributing to ED overcrowding. Over the years, various risk stratification systems have been developed, including the prominent HEART Score and Pathway. Patients are stratified into low, moderate, and high risk. Most “non–low-risk” patients are recommended for admission and objective cardiac testing.1-5 The study by McGinnis et al. seeks to ask if the presence of known coronary artery disease (CAD) is predictive of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in moderate-risk patients. This study is a preplanned subgroup analysis of the HEART Pathway Implementation Study. Non–low-risk patients (history, ECG, age, risk factors [HEAR] score ≥ 4) over 21 years old with chest pain or suspected acute coronary syndrome, elevated troponin, ischemic ECG, or prior CAD were included in the study. The primary outcome was MACE at 30 days, with secondary outcomes being individual components of MACE at the index visit. In non–low-risk patients with known CAD, there was a 7.1% incidence of MACE at 30 days, and in those without known CAD, the incidence of MACE at 30 days was 1.4%. The study was limited by the fact that it was a subgroup analysis, but strengthened by the quality of the original HEART Implementation Study. The authors were clear in their definitions of MACE, and the implementation study showed that clinicians are consistent and reliable in their assignment of HEART scores. Several patients were miscategorized, which somewhat limits the data, but correct categorization would in fact make the results stronger overall. Primary outcome: 30-day MACE defined as the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or coronary revascularization (including the index visit). Moderate-risk patients (HEAR score ≥ 4) without known CAD, after negative serial troponins and a nonischemic ECG, have a low 30-day risk of MACE and may be considered for outpatient workup. Non–low-risk chest pain patients with HEAR score ≥ 4 and no known CAD may be considered for discharge and close outpatient follow up. The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0760.013

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207