MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Differences in circulating cardiac troponin I and T in acute and chronic cardiac disease

2022· article· en· W4306251125 on OpenAlexaff
Tobias Zimmermann, Luca Koechlin, J Walter, Dorien M Kimenai, Thomas Nestelberger, Jasper Boeddinghaus, Pedro López‐Ayala, Christian Puelacher, Danielle Menosi Gualandro, Ivo Strebel, Matthias Diebold, Raphael Twerenbold, Ola Hammarsten, Steven J.R. Meex, Christian Mueller

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTroponin complexInternal medicineCardiologyTroponin IDiseaseMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Clinical practice and guidelines assume that cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and cTnT are interchangeable, reflecting identical pathophysiological processes. However, it is unknown if cTnI and cTnT really are equivalent measures in different pathophysiological settings. Purpose To highlight potential differences in the release of cTnI and cTnT. Methods Large pooled cohort analysis including extensively characterized individuals, stratified into three groups: no cardiac disease (normal aging), chronic cardiac disease, and acute cardiac disease. Circulating cTnI and cTnT concentrations were measured blinded to clinical data using high-sensitivity assays (hs-cTnI-Architect, hs-cTnT-Elecsys) and their ratio calculated. Findings were validated using a second hs-cTnI assay (hs-cTnI-Clarity). Results Among 8719 individuals, 29% female, 10% had no known cardiac disease, 71% chronic cardiac disease, and 20% acute cardiac disease. Baseline characteristics including renal function were comparable between individuals with chronic and acute cardiac disease. Normal aging (without cardiac disease) was associated with a disproportional increase in cTnT versus cTnI (low cTnI/cTnT ratio, median 0.50, IQR 0.38–0.68). Although older, patients with chronic cardiac disease had a slightly higher cTnI/cTnT ratio (median 0.53, IQR 0.37–0.79, p<0.05). In contrast, in patients with acute cardiac disease, cTnI concentrations were disproportionally elevated compared to cTnT concentrations, resulting in a cTnI/cTnT ratio of 1.96 (IQR 0.93–4.73, p<0.001). Internal validation using a second hs-cTnI assay confirmed these findings. Conclusion These findings suggest relevant differences in the release of cTnI and cTnT with a greater release of cTnT versus cTnI in normal aging and a disproportional increase in cTnI versus cTnT in acute cardiac disease. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Swiss National Science Foundation

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research→French-language works237,207→