MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378193473 · doi:10.1155/2023/6636800

Evaluation of the Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines Risk Prediction Tool for Acute Aortic Syndrome: The RIPP Score

2023· article· en· W4378193473 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Ohle, Sarah McIsaac, Madison Van Drusen, Aaron Regis, Owen Montpellier, Mackenzie Ludgate, O. Bodunde, David W. Savage, Krishan Yadav

Bibliographic record

VenueEmergency Medicine International · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaNOSM UniversityOttawa HospitalScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineConfidence intervalChest painInternal medicineAcute coronary syndromePopulationClinical PracticeEmergency departmentEmergency medicinePhysical therapyMyocardial infarctionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is a rare clinical syndrome with a high mortality rate. The Canadian clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis of AAS was developed in order to reduce the frequency of misdiagnoses. As part of the guideline, a clinical decision aid was developed to facilitate clinician decision-making (RIPP score). The aim of this study is to validate the diagnostic accuracy of this tool and assess its performance in comparison to other risk prediction tools that have been developed. Methods. This was a historical case-control study. Consecutive cases and controls were recruited from three academic emergency departments from 2002–2020. Cases were identified through an admission, discharge, or death certificated diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome. Controls were identified through presenting complaint of chest, abdominal, flank, back pain, and/or perfusion deficit. We compared the clinical decision tools’ C statistic and used the DeLong method to test for the significance of these differences and report sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals. Results. We collected data on 379 cases of acute aortic syndrome and 1340 potential eligible controls; 379 patients were randomly selected from the final population. The RIPP score had a sensitivity of 99.7% (98.54–99.99). This higher sensitivity resulted in a lower specificity (53%) compared to the other clinical decision aids (63–86%). The DeLong comparison of the C statistics found that the RIPP score had a higher C statistic than the ADDRS (−0.0423 (95% confidence interval −0.07–0.02); P < 0.0009 ) and the AORTAs score (−0.05 (−0.07 to −0.02); P = 0.0002), no difference compared to the Lovy decision tool (0.02 (95% CI −0.01–0.05 P < 0.25 )) and decreased compared to the Von Kodolitsch decision tool (0.04 (95% CI 0.01–0.07 P < 0.008 )). Conclusion. The Canadian clinical practice guideline’s AAS clinical decision aid is a highly sensitive tool that uses readily available clinical information. It has the potential to improve diagnosis of AAS in the emergency department.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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 score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmergency Medicine InternationalSame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207