Sex Differences in Carotid Endarterectomy Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The existing literature provides conflicting evidence on surgical risks of carotid endarterectomy in women compared with men. We used data from a large population-based carotid surgery registry to determine whether sex differences exist in the risk of perioperative complications from carotid endarterectomy. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Ontario Carotid Endarterectomy Registry, which contains data on all patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy in the province of Ontario between 1994 and 1997. We compared the risk of death or stroke at 30 days in women and men and used multivariate analyses to adjust for age, comorbid conditions, and surgical factors. Secondary analyses compared the risks of death and/or stroke in women and men at 2 years after surgery. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 6038 patients (35% women). The risks of perioperative stroke or death were not significantly different in women compared with men (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.35). The combined risk of stroke or death at 2 years after surgery was also similar in women and men (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.21). However, women were more likely to have a stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.51) and less likely to die (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99) within 2 years after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative complication rates from carotid endarterectomy are similar in women and men. Women should not be discouraged from carotid endarterectomy solely on the basis of surgical risks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".