MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367675995 · doi:10.1007/s00392-023-02206-3

Personalized diagnosis in suspected myocardial infarction

2023· article· en· W4367675995 on OpenAlexaff
Franz–Josef Neumann, Raphael Twerenbold, Francisco Ojeda, Sally Aldous, Brandon R. Allen, Fred S. Apple, Hugo Babel, Robert H. Christenson, Louise Cullen, Eleonora di Carluccio, Dimitrios Doudesis, Ulf Ekelund, Evangelos Giannitsis, Jaimi Greenslade, Kenji Inoue, Tomas Jernberg, Peter A. Kavsak, Till Keller, Kuan Ken Lee, Bertil Lindahl, Thiess Lorenz, Simon A. Mahler, Nicholas L. Mills, Arash Mokhtari, William Parsonage, John W. Pickering, Christoph Reich, Mark Richards, Yader Sandoval, Martin Than, Betül Toprak, Richard W. Troughton, Andrew Worster, Tanja Zeller, Andreas Ziegler, Stefan Blankenberg, Emily Brownlee, Kai M. Eggers, Gavin Fincher, Norbert Frey, N. Gaikwad, Vinay Gangathimmaiah, Emma Hall, Paul M. Haller, Christian Hamilton‐Craig, Rebecca Hancock, Andrew Hobbins-King, Gerben Keijzers, Maryam Bayat, Georgios Koliopanos, Jonas Lehmacher, Lina Ljung, Troy Madsen, Ehsan Mahmoodi, Ellyse McCormick, Bryn E. Mumma, Richard M. Nowak, Vanessa Blázquez, Siegfried Perez, Vazhma Qaderi, Isuru Ranasinghe, Alina Schock, Nils A. Sörensen, Andrew Staib, Laura Stephensen, Michael T. Weaver, R. Gentry Wilkerson, Anna Zournazi

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Research in Cardiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfBritish Heart Foundation
KeywordsMedicineGeneralizability theoryMyocardial infarctionReceiver operating characteristicInternal medicineDiscriminative modelCardiologyArea under the curveMachine learningStatisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In suspected myocardial infarction (MI), guidelines recommend using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn)-based approaches. These require fixed assay-specific thresholds and timepoints, without directly integrating clinical information. Using machine-learning techniques including hs-cTn and clinical routine variables, we aimed to build a digital tool to directly estimate the individual probability of MI, allowing for numerous hs-cTn assays. METHODS: In 2,575 patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected MI, two ensembles of machine-learning models using single or serial concentrations of six different hs-cTn assays were derived to estimate the individual MI probability (ARTEMIS model). Discriminative performance of the models was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and logLoss. Model performance was validated in an external cohort with 1688 patients and tested for global generalizability in 13 international cohorts with 23,411 patients. RESULTS: Eleven routinely available variables including age, sex, cardiovascular risk factors, electrocardiography, and hs-cTn were included in the ARTEMIS models. In the validation and generalization cohorts, excellent discriminative performance was confirmed, superior to hs-cTn only. For the serial hs-cTn measurement model, AUC ranged from 0.92 to 0.98. Good calibration was observed. Using a single hs-cTn measurement, the ARTEMIS model allowed direct rule-out of MI with very high and similar safety but up to tripled efficiency compared to the guideline-recommended strategy. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated diagnostic models to accurately estimate the individual probability of MI, which allow for variable hs-cTn use and flexible timing of resampling. Their digital application may provide rapid, safe and efficient personalized patient care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Data of following cohorts were used for this project: BACC ( www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ; NCT02355457), stenoCardia ( www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ; NCT03227159), ADAPT-BSN ( www.australianclinicaltrials.gov.au ; ACTRN12611001069943), IMPACT ( www.australianclinicaltrials.gov.au , ACTRN12611000206921), ADAPT-RCT ( www.anzctr.org.au ; ANZCTR12610000766011), EDACS-RCT ( www.anzctr.org.au ; ANZCTR12613000745741); DROP-ACS ( https://www.umin.ac.jp , UMIN000030668); High-STEACS ( www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ; NCT01852123), LUND ( www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ; NCT05484544), RAPID-CPU ( www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ; NCT03111862), ROMI ( www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ; NCT01994577), SAMIE ( https://anzctr.org.au ; ACTRN12621000053820), SEIGE and SAFETY ( www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ; NCT04772157), STOP-CP ( www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ; NCT02984436), UTROPIA ( www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ; NCT02060760).

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.330
GPT teacher head0.548
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations37
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Research in CardiologySame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207