MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295024043 · doi:10.1111/dom.14867

External validation and extension of the <scp>TIMI</scp> risk score for heart failure in diabetes for patients with recent acute coronary syndrome: An analysis of the <scp>EXAMINE</scp> trial

2022· article· en· W4295024043 on OpenAlexafffund
Amir Razaghizad, Abhinav Sharma, Jiayi Ni, João Pedro Ferreira, William B. White, Cyrus R. Mehta, George L. Bakris, Faı̈ez Zannad

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Obesity and Metabolism · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAcute coronary syndromeInternal medicineTIMICardiologyHeart failureMyocardial infarctionType 2 diabetesCreatinineFramingham Risk ScoreConfidence intervalAtrial fibrillationDiabetes mellitusClinical endpointNatriuretic peptideRandomized controlled trialThrombolysisEndocrinologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aims The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Risk Score for Heart Failure (HF) in Diabetes (TRS‐HF DM ) prognosticates HF hospitalization in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to externally validate and extend its use for those with recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Materials and Methods The TRS‐HF DM was externally validated in the Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care (EXAMINE) trial (n = 5380) and extended with natriuretic biomarkers. Missing data were multiply imputed. Initial TRS‐HF DM variables were previous HF (2 points), atrial fibrillation (1 point), coronary artery disease (1 point), estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m 2 (1 point), and urine albumin‐to‐creatinine ratio 30‐300 mg/g (1 point) and >300 mg/g (2 points). Results In total, HF hospitalization occurred in 193 (3.6%) patients. Based on the TRS‐HF DM , 25% of patients were classified as intermediate risk (1 point), 30% were classified as high risk (2 points), 19% were classified as very‐high risk (3 points) and 26% were classified as severe risk (≥4 points). Before model extension, discrimination (C‐index 0.76, 95%·CI 0.73‐0.80) and calibration (calibration slope 0.82, 95%·CI 0.65‐1.0; calibration‐in‐the‐large −0.15, 95%·CI −0.37‐0.64) were moderate‐to‐good in individuals with T2D and recent ACS. The extension of TRS‐HF DM with the addition of N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐ProBNP) improved discrimination (C‐index 0.82, 95%·CI 0.79‐0.85) and calibration (calibration slope 0.84, 95%·CI 0.66‐1.02; calibration‐in‐the‐large −0.12, 95%·CI −0.33‐0.081) for this higher‐risk population. Conclusion The TRS‐HF DM with the extension of NT‐ProBNP improves risk stratification and generalizes the use of the risk score for patients with T2D and ACS. Future validation studies in ACS populations may be warranted.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes Obesity and MetabolismSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207