MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411177487 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2025.06.001

Balancing Costs and Benefits: A Less DanGerous Protocol for Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

2025· article· en· W4411177487 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Rene Boudreau, Sharon Chih, Michel Le May, Pietro Di Santo, Rebecca Mathew, Munir Boodhwani, Hadi Toeg, Brock Wilson, Aun‐Yeong Chong, Derek YF So

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockMyocardial infarctionProtocol (science)CardiologyInternal medicineShock (circulatory)Intensive care medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mortality from acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) remains high. Although the DanGer Shock trial showed a 12.7 % absolute reduction in mortality with micro-axial flow pump (Impella CP), the strategy is expensive, resource-intensive, and associated with higher rates of bleeding, limb ischemia and kidney injury.1 To balance these considerations, the Ottawa Heart Institute’s cardiogenic-shock team designed a pragmatic AMICS protocol that preserves DanGer’s central features and introduces cost and complication-conscious modifications, delivered through a multidisciplinary “AMI Code Shock” pathway that integrates activation, insertion, escalation, de-escalation and quarterly case review.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
GenreProtocol

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 routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Cardiology→Same topicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices→French-language works237,207→