Sentiment analysis tools should take account of the number of exclamation marks!!!

There are various factors that affect the sentiment level expressed in textual comments. Capitalization of letters tends to mark something for attention and repeating of letters tends to strengthen the emotion. Emoticons are used to help visualize facial expressions which can affect understanding of text. In this paper, we show the effect of the number of exclamation marks used, via testing with twelve online sentiment tools. We present opinions gathered from 500 respondents towards “like” and “dislike” values, with a varying number of exclamation marks. Results show that only 20% of the online sentiment tools tested considered the number of exclamation marks in their returned scores. However, results from our human raters show that the more exclamation marks used for positive comments, the more they have higher “like” values than the same comments with fewer exclamations marks. Similarly, adding more exclamation marks for negative comments, results in a higher “dislike”

Comparison of REMS, NEWS, qSOFA and SIRS criteria scales for sepsis prediction in patients with diagnosis “SARS-CoV-2, virus unidentified”: a retrospective observational study

Background. Despite ample research on the coronavirus infection sequence and therapy, the incidence of adverse outcomes remains very high. Sepsis stands among the major factors greatly complicating treatment and increasing the risk of death. A timely identification of highrisk sepsis patients is a cornerstone of effective sepsis prevention.Objectives. A comparative prognostic power assessment between the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) scale, National Early Warning Score (NEWS), Initial Prehospital Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) and the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria for sepsis detection in anaesthetic intensive care patients with a diagnosis: SARS-CoV-2, virus unidentified.Methods. A retrospective observational study included 166 patients over 18-year age with unconfirmed infection (ICD-10 code U07.2). The qSOFA, NEWS, REMS and SIRS point estimates were obtained from each patient. The patients were retrospectively divided in two cohorts by sepsis presence (Sepsis-3 criteria) to determine the express scales power in evaluating the risk of sepsis (estimated as area under ROC curve, AUROC).Results. Data on 102 patients were included in the final analysis. Fifty-eight (57%) patients were terminal, and 55 (54%) developed sepsis. The estimates are as follows: NEWS — AUROC 0.848 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.764–0.912], sensitivity 76.36% [95% CI 63.0–86.8], specificity 82.98% [95% CI 69.2–92.4], optimal cut-off threshold >5 points; qSOFA — AUROC 0.700 [95% CI 0.602–0.787], sensitivity 76.36% [95% CI 63.0–86.8], specificity 61.70% [95% CI 46.4–75.5], optimal cut-off threshold >0 points; REMS — AUROC 0.739 [95% CI 0.643–0.821], sensitivity 69.09% [95% CI 55.2–80.9], specificity 65.96% [95% CI 50.7–79.1], optimal cut-off threshold >5 points; SIRS criteria — AUROC 0.723 [95% CI 0.626–0.807], sensitivity 98.18% [95% CI 90.3–100.0], specificity 31.91% [95% CI 19.1–47.1], optimal cut-off threshold >0 points.Conclusion. The NEWS scale revealed a good prognostic power to estimate the risk of sepsis in patients with suspected COVID-19 disease. The qSOFA, REMS scales and SIRS criteria possess a good calibration capacity, albeit insufficient resolution, which limits their prognostic value

Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events, but whether the addition of ezetimibe, a nonstatin drug that reduces intestinal cholesterol absorption, can reduce the rate of cardiovascular events further is not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial involving 18,144 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and had LDL cholesterol levels of 50 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 2.6 mmol per liter) if they were receiving lipid-lowering therapy or 50 to 125 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 3.2 mmol per liter) if they were not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. The combination of simvastatin (40 mg) and ezetimibe (10 mg) (simvastatin-ezetimibe) was compared with simvastatin (40 mg) and placebo (simvastatin monotherapy). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization ( 6530 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke. The median follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: The median time-weighted average LDL cholesterol level during the study was 53.7 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 69.5 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier event rate for the primary end point at 7 years was 32.7% in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 34.7% in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.99; P = 0.016). Rates of pre-specified muscle, gallbladder, and hepatic adverse effects and cancer were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When added to statin therapy, ezetimibe resulted in incremental lowering of LDL cholesterol levels and improved cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, lowering LDL cholesterol to levels below previous targets provided additional benefit