A Feasibility Study for CODE-MI: High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin - Optimizing the Diagnosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction/Injury in Women.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesThis feasibility study was conducted to inform the design and power evaluation of CODE-MI, a pan-Canadian trial evaluating the impact of using the female-specific 99th-percentile threshold for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) on the diagnosis, treatment and outcomes of women presenting to the emergency department with symptoms suggestive for myocardial ischemia. ApproachCODE-MI is a multi-center, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial. The cohort and outcomes will be obtained from routinely collected administrative data. Using linked administrative data from 11 hospitals in Ontario from 2014/10 to 2017/09, this feasibility study obtained the following estimates: number of eligible patients, i.e., women presenting to the emergency department with symptoms suggestive of myocardial ischemia and a 24-hour peak hs-cTn value within the female-specific and overall thresholds (i.e. primary cohort); the rate of the 1-year composite outcome of all-cause mortality, re-admission for non-fatal myocardial infarction, incident heart failure, or emergent/urgent coronary revascularization. Study power was evaluated via simulations. ResultsOverall, 2,073,849 emergency department visits were assessed. Among women, chest pain (with or without cardiac features) and shortness of breath were the most common complaints associated with a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome. An estimated 7.7% of women with these complaints are eligible for inclusion in the primary cohort. The rate of the 1-year outcome in the primary cohort varied significantly across hospitals with a median rate of 12.2% (95%CI: 7.9%-17.7%). With 30 hospitals, randomized at 5-month intervals in 5 steps, approximately 19,600 women are expected to be included in CODE-MI, resulting in >82% power to detect a 20% decrease in the odds of the primary outcome at a 0.05 significance level. ConclusionRoutinely collected administrative health data serve as a rich and essential resource for conducting pragmatic trials assessing process change, such as CODE-MI. We demonstrated the strength of using linked administrative health data to guide the design of pragmatic clinical trials and accurately evaluate the study power.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".