Bibliographic record
Abstract
HYPOTHESIS: The approach to pericardial window in patients with nontraumatic pericardial effusion impacts outcome. DESIGN: Retrospective review and comparison of all cases of pericardial window performed over 10 years. Follow-up was to patient death. SETTING: Three hospitals performing cardiothoracic surgery at a single university. PATIENTS: All patients in whom pericardial window was performed for nontraumatic pericardial effusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes associated with the subxyphoid approach to pericardial window were compared with those associated with the transthoracic approach. The primary outcome was postsurgical recurrence of pericardial effusion. Secondary outcomes included operative time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay, and days between surgery and death. RESULTS: Over 10 years, there were 342 patients with procedural codes for pericardial window in the medical record databases of 3 hospitals performing cardiothoracic surgery at 1 university center. One hundred fifty-one patients were excluded because the operation was performed for trauma, postoperative tamponade, or pericardial biopsy without effusion. The results are, therefore, based on the remaining 191 procedures. The subxyphoid approach was used in 78 patients, and the transthoracic approach in 113 patients. Patients were well matched for age (P = .31), sex (P = .05), preoperative tamponade (P = .08), and comorbidities (P > .05). No differences were observed between the 2 approaches in terms of recurrence of effusion, operative time, overall intraoperative or postoperative complications, and hospital or intensive care unit lengths of stay. In-hospital mortality was significantly greater in the subxyphoid group (27 of 78 vs 18 of 113 patients; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Over 10 years, there were 191 pericardial windows performed for nontraumatic pericardial effusions. The subxyphoid and transthoracic approaches were well tolerated by patients, required short operative times, and resulted in similar rates of overall postoperative complications and intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay. Recurrence rates were low with both procedures.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".