MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414598695 · doi:10.1016/j.cca.2025.120630

ALARRM: A laboratory approach for rapid risk-assessment for myocardial infarction

2025· article· en· W4414598695 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter A. Kavsak, Sameer Sharif, Craig Ainsworth, Jinhui Ma, Shawn Mondoux, Dennis T. Ko, Andrew Worster

Bibliographic record

VenueClinica Chimica Acta · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsImpactSunnybrook HospitalMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAbbott PharmaceuticalsRoche
KeywordsMyocardial infarctionRisk stratificationElectrocardiography in myocardial infarctionStratification (seeds)Coronary heart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Current pathways using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) to rule in and rule out myocardial infarction (MI) are assay specific. This requires clinicians and laboratories to use the correct assay-specific cutoffs, deltas, and time between measurements for optimal decision making. To overcome these challenges, we developed a new common laboratory pathway (i.e., ALARRM: a laboratory approach for rapid risk-assessment for MI) to aid in early risk stratification for MI in the emergency department (ED) using the combined validated clinical chemistry score (CCS) and common change criteria (3C) algorithm. The objective of our study was to assess the diagnostic performance (sensitivity and specificity) and effectiveness (combination of rule out/low risk and rule in/high risk) of ALARRM. METHODS: The study cohort (n = 855) consisted of patients presenting to the ED with acute coronary syndrome symptoms and had two blood samples collected three hours apart for measurement of Abbott hs-cTnI, Ortho hs-cTnI, Roche hs-cTnT, glucose, and creatinine (for the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculation). We also assessed the European society of cardiology (ESC) single sample assay-specific cutoffs with both ALARRM and ESC criteria being assessed for index MI in the cohort. RESULTS: The sensitivity for MI using ALARRM was 100 % for all three assays, however this was not the case for the ESC single cutoffs where the Ortho hs-cTnI assay missed 4 MIs. The specificities in patients with serial measurements with ALARRM were > 90 %, with the overall effectiveness for ALARRM being 61 % (95 %CI: 58 to 64) for Roche, 80 % (95 %CI: 77 to 82) for Abbott, and 89 % (95 %CI: 86 to 91) for Ortho. CONCLUSION: The ALARRM pathway represents a highly efficacious and common approach using hs-cTn for early risk stratification for MI.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.350 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinica Chimica ActaSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207