MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388784528 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2023.11.014

Pathophysiology of Myocardial Infarction With Nonobstructive Coronary Artery Disease: A Contemporary Systematic Review

2023· article· en· W4388784528 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsDéveloppement Economique LongueuilCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa Heart Institute FoundationUniversity of OttawaNovartis
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionPathophysiologyCardiologyCoronary artery diseaseInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary artery disease (MINOCA) is defined as acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with angiographically nonobstructive coronary artery disease. MINOCA represents 6% of all AMI cases and is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. However, the wide array of pathophysiological factors and causes associated with MINOCA presents a diagnostic conundrum. Therefore, we conducted a contemporary systematic review of the pathophysiology of MINOCA. Methods: A comprehensive systematic review of MINOCA was carried out through the utilization of the PubMed database. All systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and cohort studies available in English or French that reported on the pathophysiology of MINOCA published after January 1, 2013 were retained. Results: Of the 600 identified records, 80 records were retained. Central to the concept of MINOCA is the definition of AMI, characterized by the presence of myocardial damage reflected by elevated cardiac biomarkers in the setting of acute myocardial ischemia. As a result, a structured approach should be adopted to thoroughly assess and address clinically overlooked obstructive coronary artery disease, and cardiac and extracardiac mechanisms of myocyte injury. Once these options have been ruled out, a diagnosis of MINOCA can be established, and the appropriate multimodal assessment can be conducted to determine its specific underlying cause (plaque disruption, epicardial coronary vasospasm, coronary microvascular dysfunction, and coronary embolism and/or spontaneous coronary dissection or supply-demand mismatch). Conclusions: Integrating a suitable definition of AMI and understanding the pathophysiological mechanisms of MINOCA are crucial to ensure an effective multimodal diagnostic evaluation and the provision of adequate tailored therapies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.269 · 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