MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309048366 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20210317

Cardiac Link: a retrospective cohort study evaluating a clinical pathway for expedited cardiology referral

2022· article· en· W4309048366 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Fahmeen J. Afgani, Connor T. A. Brenna, Kate Hanneman, Stephen Holzapfel, Corwin Burton, Paula J. Harvey, Elsie T. Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineCohortCardiologyEmergency medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background:</h3> Outpatients presenting with chest pain often face long wait times for cardiology consultation and subsequent investigation for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), during which adverse cardiovascular events may occur. Our objective was to describe the design of Cardiac Link, a coronary computed tomography angiogram (CCTA)-guided rapid-access program, and evaluate its effect on cardiology consultation wait times in patients who present to primary care physicians with stable chest pain. <h3>Methods:</h3> We conducted a retrospective cohort study at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, between 2017 and 2020 involving eligible patients from the Family Practice Health Centre who underwent CCTA after presenting with stable chest pain or equivalent symptoms. Referring primary care physicians decided on a patient-by-patient basis to opt into the Cardiac Link program when requesting CCTA. Our primary outcome was measure of time from CCTA to cardiology consultation, and our secondary outcomes were measures of time to diagnosis from primary care consultation and CCTA booking time. <h3>Results:</h3> Our analysis included 148 patients (Cardiac Link <i>n</i> = 98, non–Cardiac Link <i>n</i> = 50). Mean age of the patients was 58.4 (SD 11.2) years and 72% (107/148) were women. We found that the Cardiac Link group had a shorter time from CCTA to cardiology consultation (median 7 [interquartile range {IQR} 6–20] d v. median 100 [IQR 40–138] d; <i>p</i> = 0.01), shorter time to diagnosis (median 33 [IQR 22–55] d v. median 86 [IQR 40–112] d; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and shorter CCTA booking time (median 18 [IQR 11–31] d v. median 65 [IQR 24–92] d; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) compared with the non–Cardiac Link group. <h3>Interpretation:</h3> We determined that the Cardiac Link program reduced cardiology consultation wait times for symptomatic patients who were suspected of having CAD. Our study shows the viability of CCTA-guided rapid-access programs to expedite specialist consultation and reduce unnecessary referral for patients presenting to primary care physicians with stable chest pain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207