Validation of clinical-radiological scores for prognosis of mortality in acute pulmonary embolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Acute pulmonary embolism (APE) is a hazardous disorder with a high mortality. Combination of clinical, radiological, and serological parameters can improve risk stratification of APE. Most of the proposed combined scores were not validated in independent cohorts. Our aim was to validate the proposed clinical-radiological scores for prognosis of 7- and 30-day mortality in APE. Materials and methods Our sample comprised 531 patients with APE, mean age 64.8 ± 15.6 years, 221 (41.6%) females and 310 (58.4%) males. The following parameters were collected: Age and sex of the patients, mortality within the observation time of 30 days, simplified pulmonary embolism severity index (sPESI), pH troponin level (pg/ml), minimal systolic and diastolic blood pressures (mmHg), heart rate, O 2 saturation, episodes of syncope, and need for vasopressors. On CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA), short axis ratio right ventricle/left ventricle (RV/LV), and reflux of contrast medium into the inferior vena cava were obtained. The following clinical-radiological scores were calculated: BOVA score, pulmonary embolism mortality score (PEMS), European Society of Cardiology (ESC) score, Kumamaru score, and Calgary acute pulmonary embolism (CAPE) score. Results Overall, 31 patients (5.8%) died within seven and 64 patients (12%) within 30 days. All scores showed high negative prognostic values ranging from 89.0 to 99.0%. PEMS and CAPE score demonstrated the highest specificity for 7-day mortality (93.4% and 85.0%), PEMS and BOVA for 30-day mortality (94.2% and 90.4%). The highest sensitivity was observed for ESC 2019 (96.8% and 95.3%). Kumamaru and CAPE scores had low sensitivity. All scores had low positive and high negative predictive values. Conclusion For prognosis of 7- and 30-day mortality in APE, PEMS score has the highest specificity. ESC 2019 shows the highest sensitivity. All scores had low positive and high negative predictive values.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".