Prehospital Prediction of Cardiogenic Shock Among Patients With ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The EARLY SHOCK Score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) develops in up to 10% of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates. The objective of the current study was to generate a clinical scoring system that can be easily applied in the prehospital setting to predict the development of in-hospital CS among patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study using prospective data from a dual hub-and-spoke health system. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between prespecified clinical predictors and the occurrence of in-hospital CS. Internal validation was conducted to assess the C statistic and calibration curve of the prediction model. The prediction model was converted to a risk score by scaling of the regression coefficients. RESULTS: From April 1, 2012, to December 31, 2020, there were 2736 consecutive patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Of these, 415 (15.2%) developed CS. Eight strong predictors were independently associated with CS by multivariable analysis and used to develop a prediction model. The model achieved a C statistic of 0.87. The EARLY SHOCK risk scoring algorithm incorporates Emergency Medical Services Heart Rate and Systolic Blood Pressure, Age, Renal Replacement, Location of Infarction, Sugar (diabetes), Heart Failure, and Cardiac Arrest. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified 8 clinical variables that strongly predict CS among patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. This has been developed into the EARLY SHOCK score, which can be easily applied in the prehospital setting to rapidly identify CS and enable shock team activation. External validation for the scoring system is pending for broader application.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".