MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399024825 · doi:10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.100988

The HEARTRISK6 Scale

2024· article· en· W4399024825 on OpenAlexafffund
Ian G. Stiell, Jeffrey J. Perry, Debra Eagles, Krishan Yadav, Catherine M. Clement, Andrew D. McRae, Justin W. Yan, Lisa Mielniczuk, Brian H. Rowe, Bjug Borgundvaag, Jonathan Dreyer, Erica Brown, Marie‐Joe Nemnom, Monica Taljaard

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Advances · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of AlbertaLawson Health Research InstituteWestern UniversitySchwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine InstituteLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of CalgaryOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaOttawa Hospital Research Institute
KeywordsScale (ratio)GeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Acute heart failure (AHF) is a common emergency department (ED) presentation that may have poor outcomes but often does not require hospital admission. There is little evidence to guide dispositional decisions. Objectives: The authors sought to create a risk score for predicting short-term serious outcomes (SSO) in patients with AHF. Methods: We pooled data from 3 prospective cohorts: 2 published studies and 1 new cohort. The 3 cohorts prospectively enrolled patients who required treatment for AHF at 10 tertiary care hospital EDs. The primary outcome was SSO, defined as death <30 days, intubation or noninvasive ventilation (NIV), myocardial infarction, or relapse to ED <14 days. The logistic regression model evaluated 13 predictors, used an AIC-based step-down procedure, and bootstrapped internal validation. Results: Of the 2,246 patients in the 3 cohorts (N = 559; 1,100; 587), the mean age was 77.4 years, 54.5% were male, 3.1% received intravenous nitroglycerin, 5.2% received ED NIV, and 48.6% were admitted to the hospital. There were 281 (12.5%) SSOs including 70 deaths (3.1%) with many in discharged patients. The final HEARTRISK6 Scale included 6 variables: valvular heart disease, tachycardia, need for NIV, creatinine, troponin, and failed reassessment (walk test). Choosing HEARTRISK6 total-point admission thresholds of ≥1 or ≥2 would yield, respectively, sensitivities of 88.3% (95% CI: 83.9%-91.8%) and 71.5% (95% CI: 65.9%-76.7%) and specificities of 24.7% (95% CI: 22.8%-26.7%) and 50.1% (95% CI: 47.9%-52.4%) for SSO. Conclusions: Using 3 large prospectively collected datasets, we created a concise and sensitive risk scale for patients with AHF in the ED. Implementation of the HEARTRISK6 scale could lead to safer and more efficient disposition decisions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.300 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC AdvancesSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207