MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977188271 · doi:10.1002/ccd.1067

Complications of cardiac catheterization in the current era: A single‐center experience

2001· article· en· W1977188271 on OpenAlexaff
Baskaran Chandrasekar, Serge Doucet, Luc Bilodeau, Jacques Crépeau, Pierre Déguisé, Jean‐Claude Grégoire, Richard L. Gallo, Gilles Côté, Raoul Bonan, Michel Joyal, Gilbert Gosselin, Jean‐François Tanguay, Ihor Dyrda, Marc Bois, A Pasternac

Bibliographic record

VenueCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiac catheterizationComplicationSingle CenterAbciximabSurgeryMyocardial infarctionCardiologyPercutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consecutive cardiac catheterization procedures done over a 2-yr period (April 1996 to March 1998) were prospectively analyzed to determine and characterize procedure-related complications (in-hospital and 1-mo follow-up), as they occur at present. During the study period, 11,821 procedures (7,953 diagnostic and 3,868 therapeutic) were performed. The majority of procedures (> 60%) were done in high-risk patients. Stents were implanted in 33% of patients, and adjunctive abciximab was used in 6.6% of therapeutic procedures. The overall complication rate was 8% (3.6% of diagnostic procedures and 15.1% of therapeutic procedures). The procedure-related mortality rates were 0.2%, 0.1%, and 0.5% for total, diagnostic, and therapeutic procedures, respectively. Cardiac complications were seen in 3.9% (1.5% of diagnostic and 9% of therapeutic procedures). Emergency cardiac surgery was required in 0.05% of the diagnostic procedure group and 0.3% of the therapeutic procedure group (total, 0.1%). Despite marked changes in patient population and practice, the complication rates of cardiac catheterization remain very low.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations146
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatheterization and Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207