MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410478708 · doi:10.1177/14782715251342287

Increase in self-presenting patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction to the emergency department

2025· article· en· W4410478708 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ronald Manorekang, Alison Eales, James Thomas, Veeran Subramaniam

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeMyocardial infarctionEmergency departmentPercutaneous coronary interventionChest painReperfusion therapyInternal medicineReferralEmergency medicineCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyCardiologyAngina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We provide data on self-presenting patients with a diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) from our local hospitals who were transferred to tertiary centres for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). METHODOLOGY: An audit of self-presenting patients with STEMI who underwent PPCI from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2023. Time variables and post-PPCI results were scrutinised. RESULTS: = 0.006). One hundred and one (80%) patients were men and 83 (66%) patients attended during out-of-hours. The median time from patients' registration to having an ECG was 20 min [interquartile range (IQR) 12-38], from ECG to receiving dual anti-platelet was 29 min (IQR 18-52), from a referral made to the regional PPCI centre to when patients left emergency department (ED) was 55 min (IQR 32-79), and total time patients spent in the ED was 126 min (IQR 88-174). One hundred and eleven (88%) patients had PPCI, mostly single vessel and 4 (3%) patients died within 30 days of PPCI. CONCLUSION: There is an increasing trend in self-presentation with chest pain diagnosed as STEMI, with suboptimal guideline-directed timely management.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of EdinburghSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207