Provincial Carotid Endarterectomy Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcomes must be measured as a first step toward improving performance. We sought to measure the national and provincial outcomes from carotid endarterectomy (CE) and explain provincial differences. METHODS: We analyzed a large Canada-wide administrative hospital discharge database of all patients, except those in Quebec, receiving CE in 1994-1997 and used logistic regression for risk adjustment to measure adverse outcomes nationally and by province. Our main outcome measures were in-hospital stroke and/or death. RESULTS: A total of 14,268 patients underwent CE in the years 1994-1997. The overall death rate was 1.3% and the combined stroke and/or death rate was 4.1%. There was a trend towards improvement over the four years. The provinces of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland had significantly higher adverse event rates for the risk-adjusted combined outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of CE in Canada is good and showed improvement over four years. However, significant differences in provincial outcomes were found. This suggests that regionalization across provincial boundaries may be needed to promote higher surgeon and hospital case volumes and thus improve outcomes.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".