MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2303319369 · doi:10.1177/1708538116640077

Internal iliac coverage during endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms is a safe option: A preliminary study

2016· article· en· W2303319369 on OpenAlexafffund
Vinay Kansal, Prasad Jetty, Dalibor Kubelik, George Hajjar, Andrew Hill, Tim Brandys, Sudhir Nagpal

Bibliographic record

VenueVascular · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic aneurysm repair treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Society for Vascular Surgery
KeywordsMedicineInternal iliac arteryEmbolizationExternal iliac arteryRadiologySurgeryAneurysmEndovascular aneurysm repairCommon iliac arteryAbdominal aortic aneurysmEndovascular treatment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endovascular aneurysm repairs lacking suitable common iliac artery landing zones occasionally require graft limb extension into the external iliac artery, covering the internal iliac artery origin. The purpose of this study was to assess incidence of type II endoleak following simple coverage of internal iliac artery without embolization during endovascular aneurysm repair. Three hundred eighty-nine endovascular aneurysm repairs performed by a single surgeon (2004-2015) were reviewed. Twenty-seven patients underwent simple internal iliac artery coverage. Type II endoleak was assessed from operative reports and follow-up computed tomography imaging. No patient suffered type II endoleak from a covered internal iliac artery in post-operative computed tomography scans. Follow-up ranged from 0.5 to 9 years. No severe pelvic ischemic complications were observed. In conclusion, for selected cases internal iliac artery coverage without embolization is a safe alternative to embolization in endovascular aneurysm repairs, where the graft must be extended into the external iliac artery.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVascularSame topicAortic aneurysm repair treatmentsFrench-language works237,207