MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096037086

http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-73752 Coronary Heart Disease Frailty Is Independently Associated With Short-Term Outcomes for Elderly Patients With Non–ST-Segment

2014· article· en· W7096037086 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFlow Experience in Various Fields
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyocardial infarctionCoronary heart diseaseRevascularizationCoronary artery diseaseLogistic regressionVulnerability (computing)Heart failureFramingham Risk Score
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background—For the large and growing population of elderly patients with cardiovascular disease, it is important to identify clinically relevant measures of biological age and their contribution to risk. Frailty is an emerging concept in medicine denoting increased vulnerability and decreased physiological reserves. We analyzed the manner in which the variable frailty predicts short-term outcomes for elderly non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. Methods and Results—Patients aged �75 years, with diagnosed non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were included at 3 centers, and clinical data including judgment of frailty were collected prospectively. Frailty was defined according to the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale. The impact of the comorbid conditions on risk was quantified by the coronary artery disease–specific index. Of 307 patients, 149 (48.5%) were considered frail. By multiple logistic regression, frailty was found to be strongly and independently associated with risk for the primary composite outcome (death from any cause, myocardial reinfarction, revascularization due to ischemia, hospitalization

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6190.717

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFlow Experience in Various FieldsFrench-language works237,207