Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 651

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Computer Protocol to Predict Myocardial Infarction in Emergency Department Patients with Chest Pain

Goldman, Lee, Cook, E. Francis, Brand, Donald A., Lee, Thomas H., Rouan, Gregory W., Weisberg, Monica C., Acampora, Denise, Stasiulewicz, Carol, Walshon, Jay, Terranova, George, Gottlieb, Louis, Kobernick, Michael, Goldstein-Wayne, Beth, Copen, David, Daley, Karen, Brandt, Allan A., Jones, Daniel, Mellors, John, Jakubowski, Rita·1988·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

To achieve more appropriate triage to the coronary care unit of patients presenting with acute chest pain, we used clinical data on 1379 patients at two hospitals to construct a simple computer protocol to predict the presence of myocardial infarction. When we tested this protocol prospectively in 4770 patients at two university hospitals and four community hospitals, the computer-derived protocol had a significantly higher specificity (74 vs. 71 percent) in predicting the absence of infarction than physicians deciding whether to admit patients to the coronary care unit, and it had a similar sensitivity in detecting the presence of infarction (88.0 vs. 87.8 percent). Decisions based solely on the computer protocol would have reduced the admission of patients without infarction to the coronary care unit by 11.5 percent without adversely affecting the admission of patients in whom emergent complications developed that required intensive care. Although this protocol should not be used to override careful clinical judgment in individual cases, the computer protocol for the most part yields accurate estimates of the probability of myocardial infarction. Decisions about admission to the coronary care unit based on the protocol would have been as effective as those actually made by the unaided physicians who cared for the patients, and less costly. Whether physicians who are aided by the protocol perform better than unaided physicians cannot be determined without further study.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm198803313181301

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 651

Metadata

Authors
Goldman, L., Cook, E. F., Brand, D. A., Lee, T. H., Rouan, G. W., Weisberg, M. C., Acampora, D., Stasiulewicz, C., Walshon, J., Terranova, G., Gottlieb, L., Kobernick, M., Goldstein-Wayne, B., Copen, D., Daley, K., Brandt, A. A., Jones, D., Mellors, J., & Jakubowski, R.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1988-03-31
Volume
318
Issue
13
Pages
797-803
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2316990564
Cited by
651
References
3
FWCI
108.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Computer Protocol to Predict Myocardial Infarction in Emergency Department Patients with Chest Pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198803313181301
The paper
Goldman, L., Cook, E. F., Brand, D. A., Lee, T. H., Rouan, G. W., Weisberg, M. C., Acampora, D., Stasiulewicz, C., Walshon, J., Terranova, G., Gottlieb, L., Kobernick, M., Goldstein-Wayne, B., Copen, D., Daley, K., Brandt, A. A., Jones, D., Mellors, J., & Jakubowski, R. (1988). A Computer Protocol to Predict Myocardial Infarction in Emergency Department Patients with Chest Pain. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198803313181301

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.