MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139529629 · doi:10.1002/clc.4960230505

Should interventional cardiac catheterization procedures take place at the time of diagnostic procedures?

2000· article· en· W2139529629 on OpenAlex
Varadendra B. Panchamukhi, Greg C. Flaker

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cardiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiac catheterizationMyocardial infarctionAngioplastyCulpritPercutaneous coronary interventionUnstable anginaCoronary artery bypass surgeryBypass surgeryPercutaneousCardiologyCatheterAnginaCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyArterySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In many cardiac catheterization laboratories interventional procedures are performed at a date later than the diagnostic study, causing increased hospital days and costs. Few data exist which compare procedural success, complications, and costs between procedures performed at the time of diagnostic study and those performed later. HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and success of same-day interventional procedures and to quantitate hospital cost savings with this strategy. METHOD: In all, 357 consecutive patients who underwent an elective interventional procedure of a native coronary artery either at the time of diagnostic study (same day, n = 244) or later (delayed, n = 113) were reviewed. Procedural success [< 30% residual lesion post-percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) or 0% residual lesion post-stent], major complications [death, emergent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), myocardial infarction, and ventricular fibrillation], hospital days, and costs were analyzed. Procedural expense, including the diagnostic and interventional procedure in the cardiac catheterization laboratory, and hospital expense were analyzed. RESULTS: Both groups were similar in terms of age, gender, coronary risk factors, indications (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, abnormal stress test), the culprit coronary artery, type of intervention (PTCA, stent), and lesion complexity (type A, B, C). The average hospital stay for the two groups was 4.37 +/- 2 and 6.55 +/- 2.4 days, respectively (p < 0.0001). The procedural charges were $8,207.99 and 10,581.87, respectively (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Catheter intervention performed at the same time as the diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedure is as successful and as safe as that performed at a later date. Hospital stay and costs, as well as procedural expenses are significantly reduced by this practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.319 · 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