MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308931189 · doi:10.1016/j.carpath.2022.107497

Sudden cardiac death in the young: A consensus statement on recommended practices for cardiac examination by pathologists from the Society for Cardiovascular Pathology

2022· article· en· W4308931189 on OpenAlexaff
Karen L. Kelly, Peter T. Lin, Cristina Basso, Melanie C. Bois, L. Maximilian Buja, Stephen D. Cohle, Giulia d’Amati, Emily Duncanson, John T. Fallon, Dennis Firchau, Gregory A. Fishbein, Carla Giordano, Charles Leduc, Silvio Litovsky, Shannon Mackey‐Bojack, Joseph J. Maleszewski, Katarzyna Michaud, Robert F. Padera, Stavroula Papadodima, Sarah Parsons, Stanley J. Radio, Stefania Rizzo, Susan J. Roe, Maria Romero, Mary N. Sheppard, James R. Stone, Carmela D. Tan, Gaetano Thiene, Allard C. van der Wal, John P. Veinot

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiovascular Pathology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronerMedicineSudden cardiac deathMedical examinerDiseaseCause of deathIntervention (counseling)AutopsyJurisdictionSudden deathForensic pathologyIntensive care medicinePathologyPediatricsMedical emergencyCardiologyPsychiatryInjury preventionPoison controlLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sudden cardiac death is, by definition, an unexpected, untimely death caused by a cardiac condition in a person with known or unknown heart disease. This major international public health problem accounts for approximately 15-20% of all deaths. Typically more common in older adults with acquired heart disease, SCD also can occur in the young where the cause is more likely to be a genetically transmitted process. As these inherited disease processes can affect multiple family members, it is critical that these deaths are appropriately and thoroughly investigated. Across the United States, SCD cases in those less than 40 years of age will often fall under medical examiner/coroner jurisdiction resulting in scene investigation, review of available medical records and a complete autopsy including toxicological and histological studies. To date, there have not been consistent or uniform guidelines for cardiac examination in these cases. In addition, many medical examiner/coroner offices are understaffed and/or underfunded, both of which may hamper specialized examinations or studies (e.g., molecular testing). Use of such guidelines by pathologists in cases of SCD in decedents aged 1-39 years of age could result in life-saving medical intervention for other family members. These recommendations also may provide support for underfunded offices to argue for the significance of this specialized testing. As cardiac examinations in the setting of SCD in the young fall under ME/C jurisdiction, this consensus paper has been developed with members of the Society of Cardiovascular Pathology working with cardiovascular pathology-trained, practicing forensic pathologists.

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)0.111
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.143
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1110.143
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0120.012
Research integrity0.0260.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.007

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 head0.294
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations59
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiovascular PathologySame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207