The exact text we saved

This is the version exactly as it was saved, character for character. The SHA-256 hash below is a 64-character code worked out from that text. Run the same text through SHA-256 and you get the same code; change a single letter and the code comes out completely different. Each version also stores the previous version’s hash, which chains them together so no version can be swapped out quietly.

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-2465
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-11-11T06:01:51.805952Z
status: published
lens: g_space
sector: health
headline: Identifying Patients for Cardiovascular Evaluation Using Artificial Intelligence and Team-Based Care in Ghana: The H-TRIAGE Study
dek: Background: Cardiovascular diagnostic capacity is limited in many low-resource settings. We evaluated the HeartLINK Triage for Risk-Informed Allocation and Guided Evaluation (H-TRIAGE) index, a prespecified strategy combining clinical information and AI-enabled digital auscultation to prioritize cardiovascular evaluation. Methods: In this prospective study in Ghana (February-July 2026), consecutively enrolled adults underwent a standardized assessment by trained frontline nurses and community health workers. H-T…
gain_title: In a prospective study of 3,800 adults in Ghana, a triage score built from symptoms, vital signs and an AI stethoscope, applied by nurses and community health workers, flagged who needed cardiologist-adjudicated evaluation and could defer roughly half of those assessed.
problem_title: (none)
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: In a prospective study of 3,800 adults in Ghana, a triage score built from symptoms, vital signs and an AI stethoscope, applied by nurses and community health workers, flagged who needed cardiologist-adjudicated evaluation and could defer roughly half of those assessed.
gain_evidence: H-TRIAGE accurately identified adults needing cardiologist-adjudicated evaluation | deferring roughly half of those assessed
problem_reading: (none)
problem_evidence: (none)
quick_read: A prospective study in Ghana tested H-TRIAGE, an index that combines symptoms, vital signs and an AI-enabled digital stethoscope to decide which adults should get cardiovascular evaluation first. Trained frontline nurses and community health workers did the assessments on 3,800 adults between February and July 2026.

Among participants, 1,707 (44.9%) were judged by cardiologists to need further testing, specialist evaluation or both. The share needing it rose sharply by risk group: 2.5% in the Low group, 87.9% in Intermediate and 100% in High.

The authors conclude that the approach could focus scarce specialist and diagnostic capacity on patients most likely to need it, deferring roughly half of those assessed. Sensitivity stayed high at a facility in a different district, though the work was done in one country over about six months.
limitation: The allocation analysis was modeled rather than a real-world deployment, and external validation covered one held-out facility with 677 participants.
tag: Evidence-backed gain
key_points: The study enrolled 3,800 adults: 3,123 in the primary cohort across 5 facilities in 3 districts of the Ashanti Region and 677 in external validation. | Median age was 52 years and 77.7% of participants were women. | Four cardiologists blinded to H-TRIAGE reviewed every participant, and a fifth adjudicated disagreements. | In total, 1,707 participants (44.9%) had an adjudicated indication for further testing, cardiologist-led evaluation or both. | The index assigns Low (0-3), Intermediate (4-7) or High (8 or more) risk using predefined symptom, vital-sign and AI-stethoscope weights. | The proportion with an indication was 2.5% in Low, 87.9% in Intermediate and 100% in High risk.
rundown: Cardiovascular diagnostic capacity is limited in many low-resource settings, which is the problem H-TRIAGE targets. The strategy uses predefined additive weights rather than a trained model fitted to the study data, and was specified before the analysis.

Nurses and community health workers performed standardized assessments, while the reference standard came from four blinded cardiologists, with a fifth resolving disagreements. The reference was a recommendation for more diagnostic testing, cardiologist-led evaluation, or both.

In a modeled allocation analysis, Intermediate- and High-Risk participants counted as prioritized, and the team calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. External validation used a held-out facility in the Eastern Region, and sensitivity remained high there.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | Circulation: Population Health and Outcomes | https://doi.org/10.1161/circoutcomes.126.014561 | 2026-11-06
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

SHA-256 hash

51141e07658fdad978c33277975af129ec2bf97c58c9b8ee39cb38302a68de22

Previous version’s hash

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000