MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120268914 · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezu150

Reply to Kopjar et al.

2014· letter· en· W2120268914 on OpenAlexaff
Subodh Verma, Fina Lovren, Bobby Yanagawa, Stephen E. Fremes

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVeinAdverse effectClinical trialSurgeryOcclusionPopulationRandomized controlled trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Kopjar et al. [1] for their comments regarding our recent work published in Eur J Cardiothorac Surg [2]. We reported attenuated vascular smooth muscle cell activation via microRNA-145 as a possible pathogenetic mechanism for the clinical observation of improved vein graft patency using the no-touch (NT) approach. Kopjar et al. [1] focused on a critical aspect of a ‘NT’ vein harvest that has been a major barrier to wide-spread adoption, which being the morbidity of the leg incision. We have read their comments and offer our responses. In this report, our patient numbers were too small to make any definitive conclusions regarding clinical leg wound morbidity. To address this important issue, we direct Kopjar et al. to our ongoing prospective, multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial comparing conventional (CON) saphenous vein graft (SVG) harvest versus the no-touch technique (SUPERIOR SVG Study; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01047449). The primary outcome of the SUPERIOR SVG Study is 1-year graft occlusion; the secondary outcomes include adverse SVG harvesting events at 1 year post-coronary artery bypass graft, which include infection, haematoma, swelling, neuropathy and quality-of-life measures. In this report, we found worse short-term leg assessment scores in NT versus CON at 3 months as well as more incidences of infection (4 vs 0 patients). However, as the authors have pointed out that, at 1 year, such scores were not different between groups. Our data does suggest that, in our patient population, although NT vein harvest was associated with acute morbidity, there may not be associated long-term functional consequences. As for the method of leg closure, all leg incisions were sutured closed with two layers of subcutaneous 2-0 Vicryl (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) sutures and a single 3-0 monocryl subcuticular layer. Anti-microbial sutures may minimize leg wound harvest-site infections, but were not used in these patients. In this report, all patients were included in the leg assessment study, including the one patient with preoperative peripheral vascular disease, which was not considered severe and without observable chronic skin changes. We do advocate that lower leg harvesting be avoided and thigh saphenous vein segments used for patients with more significant peripheral arterial insufficiency. We also agree that it remains to be seen whether gender will come to be an independent risk factor for infection. The Materials and Methods section points to Supplementary data, which includes the leg wound healing and functional outcomes questionnaire. This can now be accessed on the Eur J Cardiothorac Surg website. Finally, although the representative micrographs of SVG H&E staining (Figure 1) do not show statistical differences in intima, media and adventitial thickness between the two groups, there was an observed trend in the thickness of intima, media and adventitia between the NT and CON specimens (mean ± SD: 132.72 ± 42.02 vs 112.46 ± 44.18; 217.76 ± 48.73 vs 202.32 ± 45.53, and 146.19 ± 43.39 vs 132.38 ± 28.34, respectively). Finally, there was a single crossover; a CON SVG was harvested from the leg assigned to NT that developed a leg wound infection and analysed according to intention to treat. We did not perform the as-treated analysis nor would this change the outcome of the analysis. In addition, we thank Kopjar, et al. [1] for their interest in our paper and for raising these important points. Unfortunately, this report was not designed nor able to address many of the issues raised. As Kopjar et al. point out, the SUPERIOR SVG study will address these concerns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0340.048
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.007

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207