MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 12562: To Call ‘911’ or Not: What Influences Decision Making in Patients With St-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI)?

2022· article· en· W4380794608 on OpenAlexaff
L. Avery, Kirsten Marshall, David Nelson, Yixiu Liu, Robert Grierson, Shuangbo Liu, John Ducas

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangePercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineConventional PCICardiologyCardiogenic shockEmergency departmentCoronary artery diseaseKillip classDyslipidemiaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: It is well-established that total ischemic time (TT) is related to mortality of STEMI patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). TT is composed of the time from symptom onset (Sx) to first medical contact (FMC) and FMC to device. Shortest times are achieved when patients decide to call ‘911’, have a pre-hospital electrocardiogram and are transported directly for PPCI. Efforts have primarily focused on improvement of FMC-Device time. SxFMC time is less understood, collected and studied. Our goal was to identify factors that influence STEMI patients’ decision making to employ emergency medical services (EMS) vs self-presenting to an emergency department (ED). Methods: Between 1/1/2013- 12/31/2014, we collected data on 481 consecutive low risk STEMI patients, excluding cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest and unsuccessful PPCI. Results: The median SxFMC was 53 minutes (interquartile range (IQR) 23-120) in EMS cohort versus 139 minutes (IQR 72-297) in ED group (p<0.001). EMS patients were more often older (median age 64, IQR 56-74 vs 60 IQR 52-68) vs ED, p<0.001. Presenting features such as sex, anterior STEMI, and Killip Class were not statistically different between EMS and ED. Risk factors (RF) for coronary disease including hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoking, previous diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI), previous PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were not statistically different between the groups. There was no difference in time of the day of symptoms onset between the groups. Conclusions: Accordingly, demographic, cardiac risk factors, time of onset of symptoms, location and severity of infarction are not associated with patient decisions to employ EMS. However, older patients were more likely to employ EMS. Further research is required to understand these decision-making processes to develop targeted public awareness interventions that are directed to improve SxFMC in STEMI patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designQualitative
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 venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207