MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416204740 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2025.10.018

Association Between the Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade (EHMRG30-ST) and Costs of Care

2025· article· en· W4416204740 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Karem Abdul-Samad, Shijie Zhou, María Santiago‐Jiménez, Jiming Fang, Steven Chu, Clare Atzema, Ava John‐Baptiste, Peter C. Austin, Joshua G. Lee, Lusine Abrahamyan, Heather J. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook HospitalToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersInstitut canadien d'information sur la santéOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsHeart failureEmergency departmentEjection fractionFramingham Risk ScoreTroponinRisk assessmentRisk of mortalityTriage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade (EHMRG30-ST) is a clinically validated model that predicts 30-day mortality in heart failure patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). However, the relationship between the EHMRG30-ST score and costs of care remains unclear. In this study, we explored the relationship between the EHMRG30-ST score and costs of care at 90 and 365 days after the index ED visit, and identified predictors of costs at 90 days. Methods: We combined 2 chart review databases, including 11,407 patients presenting to the ED with heart failure between 2004-2007. We estimated the costs from administrative databases. We stratified patients into quintiles (Q) of EHMRG30-ST scores (Q1 = lowest risk; Q5 = highest risk), and compared the total costs in 2021 Canadian dollars at 90 and 365 days by score quintiles. We further examined the cost breakdown by categories. Finally, we used a generalized linear model to identify predictors of 90-day costs. Results: < 0.0001). A positive correlation between EHMRG30-ST risk quintile and cost was observed for subcategories of hospital costs, long-term-care, and home care. Major predictors of 90-day costs were ejection fraction measurement and troponin levels. Conclusions: Higher mortality risk as determined by the EHMRG30-ST score was associated with higher costs for up to 1 year after the initial ED presentation. Our study suggests that costs of care may be another potential dimension of the utility of prognostic risk scores.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCJC OpenSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207