MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323190389 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100002183

Auditing Carotid Endarterectomy: A Regional Experience

2002· article· en· W2323190389 on OpenAlexaffvenue
J. Max Findlay, Linda Nykolyn, Tracey B. Lubkey, John H. Wong, Mikael S. Mouradian, Ambikaipakan Senthilselvan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaCapital District Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticCarotid endarterectomyStenosisStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trialSurgeryComplicationEndarterectomyReferralAuditGeneral surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Proof from randomized controlled trials that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is efficacious in stroke prevention has resulted in a large resurgence of its use in recent years. We wished to determine if patients in our region were being selected and treated with complication rates consistent with the randomized trials. METHODS: We have completed four audits of CEAs performed in our region since 1994, each followed by feed-back of results to the participating surgeons. Operations for > 70% symptomatic stenosis were considered appropriate, those for 50%-69% symptomatic and > 60% asymptomatic stenosis were considered uncertain and all others, including those in medically or neurologically unstable patients, were designated inappropriate. In part 4, the referral source and nature of the patients was also determined. RESULTS: Part 1 (April 1994-September 1995) found that of 291 CEAs performed 33% were appropriate, 48% were uncertain and 18% were inappropriate, and 40% of patients who underwent CEA were asymptomatic. In part 2 (September 1996-September 1997) appropriate indications significantly improved to 49% of 184 CEAs (P=0.005), uncertain indications remained nearly the same at 47%, inappropriate indications fell to 4% (P=.00002), and asymptomatic patients remained at 40%. The results of part 3 (October 1997-October 1998) remained nearly the same as part 2 (249 CEAs, 47% appropriate, 51% uncertain, 2% inappropriate, 45% asymptomatic). Part 4 (October 1999-October 2000) results were significantly better than part 3, appropriate indications increasing from 47% to 58% of 222 CEAs (P=0.02), and an elimination of inappropriate operations (P=0.03). Stroke and death complications declined over the study period from an overall rate of 5.2% in part 1 to 2.3% in part 4. In part 4 the majority of patients (69%) were referred to surgeons directly from general practitioners, including 58 (73%) of the 80 asymptomatic patients who underwent CEA. INTERPRETATION: Regular auditing and feedback of results and information to surgeons has resulted in significant and continued improvements in the surgical performance of CEA in our region. Since the majority of patients are referred directly to surgeons by general practitioners, it is important that this group of physicians be familiar with current CEA guidelines.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations28
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207