MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317326083 · doi:10.1177/021849230301100111

Impact of Preoperative Renal Dysfunction on Cardiac Surgery Results

2003· article· en· W2317326083 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Abramov, Miguel Tamariz, Stephen E. Fremes, Sheldon W. Tobe, George T. Christakis, Veena Guru, Bernard S. Goldman

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyCardiac surgeryInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Results of cardiac surgery were analyzed using a database that included plasma creatinine levels in 2,214 patients, of whom 507 had preoperative renal dysfunction (creatinine clearance < 0.9 mL x s(-1) x m(-2)). Logistic regression and propensity score analyses found preoperative renal dysfunction to be an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality. Plotting preoperative creatinine clearance against morbidity and mortality revealed an exponential increase in morbidity and mortality when preoperative creatinine clearance was < 0.84 mL x s(-1) x m(-2). Patients were stratified for age, operative procedure, and comorbidity. In all stratified groups, preoperative creatinine clearance < 0.84 mL x s(-1) x m(-2) was associated with similar exponential increases in morbidity and mortality. In patients with preoperative renal dysfunction, elevated plasma creatinine levels persevered for 6 months postoperatively. Dialysis beyond postoperative day 10 was required in < 2% of patients with preoperative plasma creatinine of 160-200 micro mol x L(-1) and in 5% in those with creatinine > 200 micro mol x L(-1) (p < 0.05). Actuarial survival was significantly reduced (< 90% at 18 months postoperatively) in patients with preoperative renal dysfunction.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Cardiovascular and Thoracic AnnalsSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207