MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387806521 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21276

Canada acute coronary syndrome risk score predicts no-/slow-reflow in ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention

2023· article· en· W4387806521 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Enmin Xie, Qing Li, Zixiang Ye, Ziyu Guo, Yike Li, Nan Shen, Changan Yu, Yanxiang Gao, Jingang Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Clinical Key Specialty Project FoundationChina-Japan Friendship HospitalShantou University Medical CollegeShantou University
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionInternal medicineCardiologyMyocardial infarctionConventional PCINo reflow phenomenonAcute coronary syndromeThrombolysisKillip classConfidence intervalReceiver operating characteristicClinical endpointArea under the curveTIMIClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The no-/slow-reflow phenomenon following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)is associated with poor prognosis. The early identification of high-risk patients with no-/slow-reflow is critical. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive ability of the Canada Acute Coronary Syndrome (C-ACS) risk score for no-/slow-reflow in these patients. Methods Patients with STEMI who underwent primary PCI were consecutively enrolled and divided into three groups based on their C-ACS scores: 0, 1, and ≥2. The C-ACS score was computed using the four clinical variables evaluated at admission (one point for each): age ≥75 years, heart rate >100 beats/min, systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg, and Killip class >1. No-/slow-reflow was defined as thrombolysis in a myocardial infarction flow grade of 0–2 after primary PCI. The predictive ability of the C-ACS score for no-/slow-reflow was evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic curve. Results A total of 834 patients were enrolled, of whom 109 (13.1 %) developed no-/slow-reflow. The incidence of no-/slow-reflow increased from the C-ACS 0 group to the C-ACS ≥2 group (6.1 % vs 17.7 % vs 34.3 %, respectively, p < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the C-ACS score was an independent predictor of no-/slow-reflow (odd ratio 2.623, 95 % confidence interval 1.948–3.532, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the C-ACS score showed good discrimination for no-/slow-reflow (area under the curve 0.707, 95 % confidence interval 0.653–0.762, p < 0.001). Further subgroup analyses indicated a significant interaction between the C-ACS score and patient sex ( p for interaction = 0.011). The independent association between the C-ACS score and no-/slow-reflow was only observed in male patients (odd ratio 3.061, 95 % confidence interval 1.931–4.852, p < 0.001). During a median follow-up duration of 4.3 years, the C-ACS score was independently associated with major adverse cardiovascular events independent of the occurrence of no-/slow-reflow ( p for interaction = 0.212). Conclusion The C-ACS risk score could independently predict the no-/slow-reflow in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, particularly in male 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207