MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Quality of care and long-term survival after ST-elevation myocardial infarction in adults with cancer: a nationwide cohort study

2025· article· en· W7127948010 on OpenAlexaff
M Dafaalla, J W D Shanmuganathan, H A R I N D Wijeysundera, S A F I Khan, A Y M A N Elbadawi, I S L A M Elgendy, P Freeman, C H R I S T Mallen, M A M A S Mamas

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyocardial infarctionProportional hazards modelHazard ratioCohort studyCohortSurvival analysisAudit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background While current evidence suggests that the clinical outcomes of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are worse among patients with cancer, it is unknown what role the quality of care received during admission plays. We aimed to evaluate the association between care quality and patient survival after discharge. Methods A nationally-linked cohort of STEMI patients (January 2005-March 2019) were obtained from the UK Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project (MINAP) and UK national Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care (HES APC) registries. We used the composite opportunity-based quality indicator (OBQI) to measure overall care quality. Survival outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models and Kaplan-Meier and cumulative survival curves. Results In total, 6,787 STEMI indexed admissions with cancer were identified. Of those, 4,340 (63.9%) patients received optimum care, 1,320 (19.5%) intermediate care, and 1,127(25.2%) low care quality. Patients with low care quality were older (optimum quality median (IQR)=72.8 (65.1, 79.6), intermediate quality 75.5 (67.9, 82.1), low quality 78.2 (69.2, 84.7)) and more frequently women (optimum quality 21.6%, intermediate quality 27.3%, low quality 35.5%). Compared to patients with optimum care, patients with low care quality had a higher risk of death at 30 days (HR 7.0, 95% CI 5.7-8.7), 1 year (HR 4.0, 95% CI 3.6-4.4), and 5 years (HR 2.6, 95% CI 2.4-2.8). Relative survival analysis revealed that the number of patients who would survive nationally if they received optimal care is 84 (95% CI 67-102), 508 (95% CI 468-548), and 1096 (95% CI 1034-1158) at 30 days, one year, and five years respectively. The association between care quality and survival was more profound in the Northwest and Northeast regions. Conclusion Quality of care is closely associated with short- and long-term survival among STEMI patients with cancer. Improving quality of care may save hundreds to thousands of lives in the shorter and longer term.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research→French-language works237,207→