Value of intraoperative duplex imaging during supervised carotid endarterectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For overall benefit, carotid endarterectomy requires low perioperative morbidity and mortality rates. Carotid thrombosis is usually secondary to technical error, which may be related to the experience of the operator. In this retrospective study the clinical and technical outcome of carotid endarterectomies performed by one consultant and five trainees were compared. METHODS: Some 149 patients underwent carotid endarterectomy; 89 were operated on by the consultant and 60 by trainees. Intraoperative duplex imaging of the carotid repair was performed before wound closure, and re-exploration was carried out when there was a residual severe stenosis associated with an intimal flap. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in clinical outcome between operations done by consultant or trainees. There was a significant increase in the number of stenoses, kinks and flaps in carotid endarterectomies performed by trainees compared with those of the consultant both before (chi2 = 12.0, 1 d.f., P < 0.001) and after (chi2 = 10.1, 1 d.f., P < 0.001) correction. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative duplex imaging may facilitate training by providing an objective assessment of the quality of the operation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".