Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm reduced death from AAA in older men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(2002) Lancet 360, 1531. The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study Group. . The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) into the effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening on mortality in men: a randomised controlled trial. . ; . : . –9 . [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In older men, does ultrasonographic screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) reduce death from AAA? Randomised (allocation concealed*), blinded (data collectors and outcome assessors),* controlled trial with mean 4.1 year follow up (Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study). 4 screening and 4 academic centres in England, UK. 67 800 men who were 65–74 years of age (mean age 69 y) and were identified from family physician and Health Authority patient lists. Family physicians excluded patients (without knowledge of randomisation) they considered unfit to be screened, including those with terminal illness, other serious health problems, or previous AAA repair. Mortality follow up was 99%. Men were allocated to be invited (n=33 839) or not invited (n=33 961) for screening. The invited group received by post an invitation on the family physician’s letterhead, an information booklet, and a … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%26rft.stitle%253DLancet%26rft.aulast%253DAshton%26rft.auinit1%253DH.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D360%26rft.issue%253D9345%26rft.spage%253D1531%26rft.epage%253D1539%26rft.atitle%253DThe%2BMulticentre%2BAneurysm%2BScreening%2BStudy%2B%2528MASS%2529%2Binto%2Bthe%2Beffect%2Bof%2Babdominal%2Baortic%2Baneurysm%2Bscreening%2Bon%2Bmortality%2Bin%2Bmen%253A%2Ba%2Brandomised%2Bcontrolled%2Btrial.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0140-6736%252802%252911522-4%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12443589%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11522-4&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12443589&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F8%2F3%2F77.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000179292400007&link_type=ISI
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".