A screening program to identify risk factors for abdominal aortic aneurysms.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to explore the feasibility of a nurse-supervised aneurysm screening program to identify any independent risk factors for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) formation in high-risk patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of 90 male patients in a university- affiliated hospital in southern Ontario. The patients were prospectively evaluated and all underwent abdominal ultrasonography, with the main outcome measure being detection of an AAA. RESULTS: AAAs were identified in 18 patients (20%) and had a mean diameter of 3.6 (range 2.8-6.0) cm. A separate analysis was performed to identify risk factors for the presence of an aneurysm. The presence of carotid artery disease proved to be the only statistically significant independent predictor of the presence of AAA (odds ratio 2.23, 95% confidence interval 1.76-2.56). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the feasibility of a nurse-supervised AAA screening program, and on the basis of these results we recommend ultrasonographic screening for AAA in patients with a history of carotid artery disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".