MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W180679841

The ArtAssist Device in chronic lower limb ischemia. A pilot study.

2002· article· en· W180679841 on OpenAlexaff
George Louridas, R Saadia, Jodi Spelay, A. Abdoh, Wendy Weighell, A. Arneja, Judith Tanner, Randolph Guzman

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Artery Disease Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studySurgeryAmputationIschemiaVascular diseaseInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic critical limb ischemia following a failed bypass graft or with non-reconstructable distal disease diagnosed angiographically, have a very poor prognosis. This is a prospective pilot study to assess the influence of the ArtAssist Device on pedal blood flow and amputation rate. METHODS: Thirty-three legs in 25 patients were evaluated. Ten legs presented with rest pain, and 23 legs with tissue loss. Nine legs had previously undergone bypass surgery. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 3 months, 14 (42%) legs were amputated, and 19 (58%) were saved. Eleven of the amputated legs were in patients with chronic renal failure, a known risk factor. The amputation rate, excluding this group, was 13.6% (3/22). Toe pressures measured initially and after 3 months on the pump showed a significant improvement (p=0.03). Forty percent of patients presenting with rest pain improved, while 26% of foot ulcers healed on the pump. Mortality rate was 12%. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this prospective study are encouraging but need to be validated in a larger prospective randomized study.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations27
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPeripheral Artery Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207