MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401185360 · doi:10.69944/pjc.5b1183a12e

Spontaneous Echo Contrast is Associated with Increased Risk for Cardioembolic Events: A Meta-analysis

2015· article· en· W4401185360 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Daniel Ramos, Jaime Alfonso M. Aherrera, Lowe Chiong, Edgar Wilson G Timbol, Felix Eduardo R. Punzalan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilippine journal of cardiology. · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContrast (vision)Meta-analysisEcho (communications protocol)CardiologyInternal medicineMedicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Spontaneous echo contrast (SEC) is a swirling smoke-like image seen inside the heart chambers or in the aorta on two-dimensional echocardiogram. It is theorized to be due to reduced blood flow, or stasis, and is considered a pre-thrombotic lesion. However, its association with cardioembolic (CE) events is not yet established. We aim to determine the association of SEC with CE events such as stroke and peripheral embolism. Methods: This meta-analysis includes observational studies with populations composed of adults ≥19 years old with documented SEC either in the cardiac chambers or the aorta; with reported data on CE events, especially stroke; and controlled for confounding variables by doing logistic regression and/or multivariate analysis. The authors conducted a systematic search of studies within the MEDLINE, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases in all languages; examined reference lists of studies; identified 14 studies that met the inclusion criteria; and obtained full manuscripts of all of them. Each study was assessed for quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The outcome of interest was assessed using Mantel-Haenzel analysis of random effects to compute for risk ratios, carried out using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.0.18. Results: Pooled analysis from the 14 studies enrolling a total of 4,659 patients showed that the presence of SEC was associated with increased CE events (27.9% vs. 26.4%; RR 3.50 95% CI 2.07–5.93 p < 0.00001 I2 = 89%). No evidence of publication bias was found by the funnel-plot method. To control for heterogeneity, we did subgroup and sensitivity analyses, which revealed that intracardiac SEC, particularly left atrial or left ventricular SEC, was primarily responsible for this association (22.8% vs. 5.8%; RR 4.69 95% CI 3.42–6.43 p < 0.00001 I2 = 0%), compared to extracardiac SEC, represented by aortic SEC (26.8% vs. 16.7%; RR 1.70 95% CI 1.05–2.77 p = 0.03 I2 = 53%). Conclusion: The presence of SEC is associated with a significantly increased risk for CE events among adult patients. This supports the need to be aggressive in the management of patients with SEC, particularly in reducing CE event risk. Clinical trials are warranted. Keywords: spontaneous echo contrast, rheologic stasis, cardioembolic events, embolic stroke

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.035
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilippine journal of cardiology.Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207