MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407962077 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2025.02.029

A Common Algorithm for Cardiac Troponin to Rule Out and Rule in Acute Myocardial Infarction

2025· article· en· W4407962077 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
John W. Pickering, Caroline Kellner, Paul M. Haller, Jonas Lehmacher, Betül Toprak, Raphael Twerenbold, Nils A. Sörensen, Richard W. Troughton, Mark Richards, Sameer Sharif, Andrew Worster, Martin Than, Peter A. Kavsak, Franz–Josef Neumann

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreMcMaster University
FundersUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfDeutsche Stiftung für HerzforschungMcMaster University
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionCardiologyTroponinClinical prediction ruleInternal medicineRule-based systemAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A limitation of diagnostic algorithms in patients with suspected myocardial infarction (MI) is the requirement for assay-specific high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) cutoff concentrations and change criteria. In this study we evaluated a common change criteria algorithm (3C) for hs-cTn and compared it with established algorithms for the rule out and rule in of MI. METHODS: We applied the 3C algorithm in 2 prospective cohort studies (with 3 different hs-cTn assays) of patients who presented to the emergency department with suspected MI who had serial hs-cTn results available. Diagnostic performance measures (sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios) for MI were obtained for the 3C (change criteria > |3| ng/L for < 10 ng/L, > |30|% between 10 and 100 ng/L, and > |15|% for > 100 ng/L), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) algorithms for rule in and rule out. Confusion matrices, net reclassification improvement, and effectiveness (percentage rule in and rule out) analyses were also performed. RESULTS: In 5011 patients, the MI prevalence was 16.12% (n = 811). Comparable diagnostic accuracy in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were observed between the 3C and ESC algorithms. Direct comparison of the algorithms via net reclassification improvement showed no decisive advantage for either algorithm. Confusion matrices for all 3 assays for the 0- and/or 1-hour and 0- and/or 2-hour sampling identified that the 3C ruled in more patients with an MI who were ruled out using the ESC algorithm. Effectiveness was higher for 3C (83.2%-88.8%) vs ESC (64.4%-74.5%) for hs-cTnI but not for hs-cTnT (64.5%-71.8% vs 72.4%-80.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The 3C algorithm offers a uniform, assay agnostic alternative to established algorithms, independent of timing of serial sampling. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT02355457, ACTR,12611001069943, ANZCTR12610000766011, and ANZCTR12613000745741.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.299 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Cardiology→Same topicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research→French-language works237,207→