MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975180568 · doi:10.1177/1538574413485648

Determination of Patient Preference for Location of Elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Surgery

2013· article· en· W1975180568 on OpenAlex
John H. Landau, Teresa Novick, Luc Dubois, Adam Power, Jeremy R. Harris, Guy DeRose, Thomas L. Forbes

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVascular and Endovascular Surgery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic aneurysm repair treatments
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbdominal aortic aneurysmPerioperativeMortality rateAneurysmSurgeryAbdominal surgeryAortic aneurysmEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Aneurysm repair is centralized in higher volume centers resulting in reduced mortality, with longer travel distances. The purpose of this study is to explore patients' preference between local care versus longer distances and lower mortality rates. METHODS: Patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) measuring 4 to 5 cm and living at least a 1-hour drive from our hospital were asked to assume it had grown to 5.5 cm, and repair was recommended with a mortality risk of 2%. The level of additional risk they would accept to undergo surgery locally was determined. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients were surveyed. If mortality risk was equivalent at the local and regional hospitals, 44% preferred care at our tertiary center, while 56% preferred surgery locally. If perioperative mortality was increased at the local hospital, 9% preferred local surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of patients with AAA will accept longer travel distances for care as long as it results in a reduction in perioperative mortality.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.215 · 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