Missing occlusions: Quality gaps for ED patients with occlusion MI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) guidelines encourage monitoring of false positives (Code STEMI without culprit) but ignore false negatives (non-STEMI with occlusion myocardial infarction [OMI]). We evaluated the hospital course of emergency department (ED) patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using STEMI vs OMI paradigms. METHODS: This retrospective chart review examined all ACS patients admitted through two academic EDs, from June 2021 to May 2022, categorized as 1) OMI (acute culprit lesion with TIMI 0-2 flow, or acute culprit lesion with TIMI 3 flow and peak troponin I >10,000 ng/L; or, if no angiogram, peak troponin >10,000 ng/L with new regional wall motion abnormality), 2) NOMI (Non-OMI, i.e. MI without OMI) or 3) MIRO (MI ruled out: no troponin elevation). Patients were stratified by admission for STEMI. Initial ECGs were reviewed for automated interpretation of "STEMI", and admission/discharge diagnoses were compared. RESULTS: Among 382 patients, there were 141 OMIs, 181 NOMIs, and 60 MIROs. Only 40.4% of OMIs were admitted as STEMI: 60.0% had "STEMI" on ECG, and median door-to-cath time was 103 min (IQR 71-149). But 59.6% of OMIs were not admitted as STEMI: 1.3% had "STEMI" on ECG (p < 0.001) and median door-to-cath time was 1712 min (IQR 1043-3960; p < 0.001). While 13.9% of STEMIs were false positive and had a different discharge diagnosis, 32.0% of Non-STEMIs had OMI but were still discharged as "Non-STEMI." CONCLUSIONS: STEMI criteria miss a majority of OMI, and discharge diagnoses highlight false positive STEMI but never false negative STEMI. The OMI paradigm reveals quality gaps and opportunities for improvement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".