The relative merits of using a high-sensitivity cardiac Troponin T assay compared to a nonhigh-sensitivity troponin T assay after noncardiac surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Troponin elevation after noncardiac surgery is associated with an elevated risk of 30-day mortality. Little is known about relative merit of using a high-sensitivity Troponin T (hsTnT), the fifth-generation assay, vs the nonhigh sensitivity Troponin T (non-hsTnT), the fourth-generation assay, in the noncardiac surgery setting. We aimed to identify whether hsTnT can identify additional patients at risk that would have gone undetected with non-hsTnT measurement. METHODS: The VISION Study included 40,004 noncardiac surgery patients with postoperative troponin measurements. Among them, 1,806 patients had both fourth-generation non-hsTnT and fifth-generation hsTnT concomitant measurements (4,451 paired results). We compared the absolute concentrations, the timing, and the impact of different thresholds on predicting 30-day major cardiovascular complications (composite of death, nonfatal cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, and congestive heart failure). RESULTS: Based on the manufacturers' threshold of 14 ng/L, 580 (32.1%) patients had postoperative hsTnT concentrations greater than the threshold, while their non-hsTnT concentrations were below the manufacturer's threshold. These 580 patients had higher risk of major cardiovascular events (OR 2.33; CI 95% 1.04-5.23; P = .049) than patients with hsTnT concentrations below the manufacturer threshold. Among patients with myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, only 50% would be detected by the fourth-generation non-hsTnT assay at 6 to 12 hours postoperative as compared to 85% with the fifth-generation hsTnT assay (P-value < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the first 3 postoperative days, fifth-generation hsTnT identified at least 1 in 3 patients with troponin elevation that would have gone undetected by fourth-generation non-hsTnT using published thresholds in this setting. Furthermore, fifth-generation hsTnT identified patients with an elevation earlier than fourth-generation non-hsTnT, indicating potential to improve postoperative risk stratification.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".