MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 4357888: Evaluating the Temporal and Sociodemographic Generalizability of the Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade

2025· article· en· W4415793825 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karem Abdul-Samad, Xuesong Wang, Peter Austin, Chris McIntosh, Husam Abdel‐Qadir, Anthony O. Gramolini, Muhammad Mamdani, Slava Epelman, Heather J. Ross, Douglas S. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWomen's College HospitalToronto Baptist Seminary and Bible CollegeInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryHeart failureDecileCohortCohort studyEmergency departmentRisk assessmentCause of death

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade (EHMRG) models are a series of clinically validated models to predict (7-day and 30-day) mortality in acute heart failure (AHF) patients. Although EHMRG models were validated in 2015, it is unknown whether EHMRG maintained temporal validity, and if they maintain accuracy in different sociodemographic strata. Objectives: To assess the temporal validity of EHMRG models using recently collected data and determine if EHMRG models perform differently across sociodemographic subgroups Methods: We selected a sample of 7537 patients presenting to 10 emergency departments with an AHF diagnosis between 2017-2019 in Ontario Canada, from the Comparison of Outcomes and Access to Care for Heart Failure Trial (COACH). We linked our cohort to national databases to obtain census-derived sociodemographic factors. We calculated the EHMRG-7 (7-day mortality), and EHMRG30-ST (30-day mortality) scores for each patient, and assessed the performance of those models using discrimination metrics and calibration plots comparing the observed and predicted probabilities of death across the deciles of risk. We then compared the discriminatory performance across several demographic subgroups. Results: In our independent temporal validation cohort (median age 80 [IQR, 70-87] years, 48% females), EHMRG-7 had a high discrimination c-statistic = 0.795 [95%CI, 0.764 – 0.824] and demonstrated good calibration with minor overestimation of the 7-day risk of death in the highest decile. EHMRG30-ST had a good discrimination, with a c-statistic = 0.777 [95%CI, 0.759 – 0.7969], but overestimated the risk of 30-day death across the upper five deciles. The discrimination of both EHMRG models was robust across subgroups of sex, marital status, income quintiles, and census derived factors, as demonstrated by comparable c-statistics in these subgroups. However, the c-statistic was lower for patients residing in retirement or long-term care homes. (Figure 1) Conclusions: EHMRG models retained good discrimination comparable to previous validations. Risk was overestimated at 30 days, which would lead to more conservative recommendations tending towards hospital admission. EHMRG models were robust over the majority of sociodemographic characteristics.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→