MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characterization of Operator Learning Curve for Transradial Coronary Interventions

2011· article· en· W2097751571 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacterization (materials science)Operator (biology)Learning curvePsychological interventionMathematicsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineComputer sciencePhysicsOpticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (TR-PCI) improves clinical outcomes compared to the transfemoral (TF) approach. However, inadequate training and experience has limited widespread adoption by interventional cardiologists. METHODS AND RESULTS: Clinical and procedural characteristics for TR-PCI were prospectively collected from 1999 to 2008. To identify minimum case volume for optimum clinical benefit, single-vessel TR-PCI cases were chronologically ranked and stratified into 1 to 50, 51 to 100, 101 to 150 and 151 to 300 case volume groups for operators starting the TR approach at the study institution. Cases by operators with a >300 TR-PCI case volume comprised the control group. TR-PCI failure rates, contrast use, guide usage, and fluoroscopy time were compared among groups. A total of 1672 patients underwent TR-PCI by 28 operators. TR-PCI failure occurred in 4% and was higher in the 1 to 50 case volume group compared to the 51 to 100 (P=0.007) and control (P=0.01) groups. Contrast use was greater in the 1 to 50 group (180±79 mL) compared to the 151 to 300 (157±75 mL, P=0.02) and control (168±79 mL, P=0.05) groups. Fluoroscopy time was higher in the 1 to 50 group (15±10 minutes) compared to the 101 to 150 (13±10 minutes, P=0.04) and control (12±9 minutes, P=0.02) groups. Reasons for TR-PCI failure included spasm (38%), subclavian tortuousity (16%), poor guide support (16%), failed access (10%), and radial loop (7%). Case volume was significantly correlated with TR-PCI failure (β=-0.0076, P=0.0028), and odds of failure was reduced by 32% for each 50 increments in case volume. CONCLUSIONS: TR-PCI success depends on operator experience, and a case volume of ≥50 cases is required to achieve outcomes comparable to experienced operators. These findings have implications both for PCI operators looking to expand their skills and for defining standards for training.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.208 · 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