MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403196327 · doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102294

SCAI Expert Consensus Statement on the Management of Patients With STEMI Referred for Primary PCI

2024· article· en· W4403196327 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqueline E. Tamis‐Holland, J. Dawn Abbott, Karim Al‐Azizi, Nitin Barman, Anna E. Bortnick, Mauricio G. Cohen, Payam Dehghani, Timothy D. Henry, Faisal Latif, Mohammad Madjid, Celina M. Yong, Yader Sandoval

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMinneapolis Heart Institute FoundationMinneapolis Heart Institute
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionPsychological interventionCardiac catheterizationMyocardial infarctionStatement (logic)Coronary angiographyIntensive care medicineThrombusCardiologyAngiographyInternal medicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Timely reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with improved outcomes. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions puts forth this expert consensus document regarding best practices for cardiac catheterization laboratory team readiness, arterial access with an algorithm to help determine proper arterial access in STEMI, and diagnostic angiography. This consensus statement highlights the strengths and limitations of various diagnostic and therapeutic interventions to access and treat a patient with STEMI in the catheterization laboratory, reviews different options to manage large thrombus burden during STEMI, and reviews the management of STEMI across the spectrum of various anatomical and clinical circumstances.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0110.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.007

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207