MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 3248: Is It Safe to Train Residents to Perform Cardiac Surgery? Intermediate Term Follow-up

2007· article· en· W101240808 on OpenAlexaff
Billie Jean Martin, Dimitri Kalavrouziotis, Roger J.F. Baskett

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioStroke (engine)Logistic regressionMyocardial infarctionCoronary artery diseaseSurgeryProportional hazards modelEmergency medicineCardiologyInternal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction While there are rigourous assessments made of trainees’ knowledge through formal examinations, objective assessments of technical skills are not available. Little is known about the safety of allowing resident trainees to perform cardiac surgical operations. Methods Peri-operative date was prospectively collected on all patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), aortic valve replacement (AVR) or a combined procedure between 1998 and 2005. Teaching-cases were identified by resident records and defined as cases which the resident performed skin to skin. Pre-operative characteristics were compared between teaching and non-teaching cases. Short-term adverse events were defined as a composite of: in-hospital mortality, stroke, intra- or post-operative intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) insertion, myocardial infarction, renal failure, wound infection, sepsis or return to the operating room. Intermediate adverse outcomes were defined as hospital readmission for any cardiac disease or late mortality. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to adjust for differences in age, acuity, and medical co-morbidities. Outcomes were compared between teaching and non-teaching cases. Results 6929 cases were included, 895 of which were identified as teaching-cases. Teaching-cases were more likely to have an EF<40%, pre-operative IABP, CHF, combined CABG/AVRs or total arterial grafting cases (all p<0.01). However, a case being a teaching-case was not a predictor of in-hospital mortality (OR=1.02, 95%CI 0.67–1.55) or the composite short-term outcome (OR=0.97, 95%CI 0.75–1.24). The Kaplan-Meier event-free survival of staff and teaching-cases was equivalent at 1, 3, and 5 years: 80% vs. 78%, 67% vs. 66%, and 58% vs. 55% (log-rank p=0.06). Cox proportional hazards regression modeling did not demonstrate teaching-case to be a predictor of late death or re-hospitalization (HR=1.05, 95%CI 0.94 –1.18). Conclusions Teaching-cases were more likely to have greater acuity and complexity than non-teaching cases. Despite this, teaching cases did no worse than staff cases in the short or intermediate term. Allowing residents to perform cardiac surgery does not appear to adversely affect patient outcomes.

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)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes→French-language works237,207→