MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 12738: Comparing Costs of Non-Invasive Cardiac Diagnostic Tests and Deferred Testing for Incident Chest Pain - A Population-Based Study

2023· article· en· W4389940583 on OpenAlexaffabout
Idan Roifman, Anna Chu, Peter C. Austin, Pamela S. Douglas, Harindra C. Wijeysundera

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChest painCoronary artery diseaseStress testing (software)PopulationEmergency medicineMyocardial perfusion imagingInternal medicineStress EchocardiographyCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Cardiac non-invasive diagnostic tests (NIT) for patients with suspected coronary artery disease cost > $3 billion annually in the US, and may be overused. Consequently, comparing costs of different NIT strategies, including deferred testing, is of urgent importance to healthcare planning. Methods: We compared population-based downstream costs between patients undergoing evaluation for chest pain in Ontario, CA with one of four NIT tests (exercise stress testing (GXT), stress echocardiography, cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI)) as well as no-testing. To compare costs among the tested and non-tested groups, we used a log-gamma generalized linear model to account for the skewed distribution of health care costs, adjusting for relevant clinical covariates. Results: Of 2,340,699 included patients, 481,170 (21%) received one of four NITs: GXT: 254,492 (53%), MPI: 154,137 (32%), stress echo: 69,160 (14%), and CCTA: 3,381 (<1%). After adjustment for patient characteristics including cardiac risk factors, frailty and location (Table 1), receipt of any NIT was associated with a 12% reduction in downstream 1-year mean costs compared to those without an NIT (cost ratio 0.88, 95%CI 0.87, 0.89). Comparing the different testing strategies with no testing, both GXT (cost ratio 0.80, 95%CI 0.79-0.81) and stress echocardiography (cost ratio 0.82, 95%CI 0.81-0.83) had lower downstream costs, while both MPI (cost ratio 1.26, 95% CI 1.25, 1.27) and CCTA (cost ratio 1.29, 95% CI 1.23, 1.35) had higher downstream costs. Conclusions: In a large (>2 million) population-based cohort with incident chest pain, receipt of any type of non-invasive testing was associated with a 12% reduction in downstream costs compared to no testing. GXT and stress echocardiography had the least downstream costs, whereas CCTA and MPI had the highest costs. These findings may help inform testing decisions in chest pain 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→