MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403224977 · doi:10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101314

From ST-Segment Elevation MI to Occlusion MI

2024· review· en· W4403224977 on OpenAlexaff
Jesse McLaren, José Nunes de Alencar, Emre Aslanger, H. Pendell Meyers, Stephen W. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Advances · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElevation (ballistics)ST elevationCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineGeographyMyocardial infarctionMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A generation ago thrombolytic therapy led to a paradigm shift in myocardial infarction (MI), from Q-wave/non-Q-wave to ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) vs non-STEMI. Using STE on the electrocardiogram (ECG) as a surrogate marker for acute coronary occlusion (ACO) allowed for rapid diagnosis and treatment. But the vast research catalyzed by the STEMI paradigm has revealed increasing anomalies: 25% of "non-STEMI" have ACO with delayed reperfusion and higher mortality. Studying these limitations has given rise to the occlusion MI (OMI) paradigm, based on the presence or absence of ACO in the patient rather than STE on ECG. The OMI paradigm shift harnesses advanced ECG interpretation aided by artificial intelligence, complementary bedside echocardiography and advanced imaging, and clinical signs of refractory ischemia, and offers the next opportunity to transform emergency cardiology and improve patient care. This State-of-the-Art Review examines the paradigm shifts from Q wave to STEMI to OMI.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.376 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations99
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC AdvancesSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207