Zu viele Herzkatheteruntersuchungen in Deutschland?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Absolute numbers of cardiovascular procedures are higher in Germany as compared to other European countries. This fact is used as an argument for overuse. Therefore other indicators of an inappropriate use of these resources should be of interest. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The relationship between diagnostic cardiac catheterisations and consequent revascularisation procedures were compared in 8 European countries. In addition the indication criteria for cardiac catheterisations were reviewed in a German registry of 205.581 consecutive inpatients. RESULTS: Revascularisation procedures after diagnostic catheterisations in 8 countries range from 39,1 % to 57,9 %. Germany reaches 43,2 %. A relation between absolute numbers of diagnostic and percent subsequent revascularisation procedures does not exist. In a German registry the following indications for cardiac catheterisation could be identified: Acute Coronary Syndrome 22,9 %. Angina pectoris according to the Canadian Cardiac Society classification was present: CCS II/III in 80,3 %, CCS IV in 17,2 %. An exercise test was performed in 43 %. Final diagnoses were: significant coronary disease 69,5 %, exclusion of disease 9,4 %, lesions < 50 % 9 %, other cardiac disease 12,1 %. CONCLUSION: Absolute numbers cannot be used as an indicator of overuse of cardiovascular procedures. Instead standards for data acquisition should be established on European, national and regional levels. In addition a validation procedure for criteria has to be developed in order to judge the appropriateness of indications for invasive cardiac procedures in different health care systems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.020 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".