MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 13964: Dynamic Assessment of Shock Severity in Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Patients

2023· article· en· W4389957044 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob C. Jentzer, Sean van Diepen, Parag C. Patel, Timothy D. Henry, David A. Morrow, David A. Baran, Kianoush Kashani

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary care unitShock (circulatory)Intensive care unitStage (stratigraphy)Internal medicineLogistic regressionCardiologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: A single assessment of the SCAI shock classification robustly predicts mortality, and a repeat assessment may improve prognostication. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that frequent serial assignment of the SCAI shock stage could further improve risk stratification. Methods: Unique AHA Level 1 cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) admissions at a single center from 2015 to 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Time-stamped electronic health record data were used to assign the SCAI shock stage in each 4-hour block during the first 24 hours of CICU admission. Shock was defined as SCAI shock stage C, D, or E. In-hospital mortality was evaluated using logistic regression. Results: Among 2,918 CICU patients, 1,537 (52.7%) met criteria for shock during >=1 block and 266 (9.1%) died in hospital. The SCAI shock stage on admission was: A, 37.6%; B, 31.5%; C, 25.9%; D, 1.8%; E, 3.3%. Patients with worsening SCAI shock stage after admission (first 4 hours) were at higher risk of mortality ( Figure A ), as were patients who met SCAI criteria for shock (particularly those with shock on admission, Figure B ). The pattern was consistent in patients with acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, or cardiac arrest (who had very high mortality). Each higher admission (aOR 1.36, 95% CI 1.18-1.56, AUC 0.70), maximum (aOR 1.59, 95% CI 1.37-1.85, AUC 0.73) and 24 hour mean (aOR 2.42, 95% CI 1.99-2.95, AUC 0.78) SCAI shock stage were incrementally associated with increasing in-hospital mortality. Discrimination was highest for the mean SCAI shock stage (p <0.05). Each additional 4 hour block meeting SCAI criteria for shock was associated with higher mortality (aOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.07-1.24). Conclusions: Dynamic assessment of shock using serial SCAI shock classification assignment can improve mortality risk stratification in CICU patients. Cumulative time in shock was a strong mortality risk indicator, highlighting the area under the curve of shock severity as an important determinant of outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→