MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323441906 · doi:10.1177/0003319713499816

The Role of Oral Vitamin K Antagonists in the Outcome of Infrainguinal Bypass Procedures

2013· review· en· W2323441906 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Athanasios Giannoukas, Kosmas I. Paraskevas, Stylianos Koutsias, Christos Argyriou, Vasilios Saleptsis, Domenico Palombo

Bibliographic record

VenueAngiology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersResearch Nova Scotia
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryRelative riskRandomized controlled trialBypass surgeryConfidence intervalInternal medicineArtery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the role of oral vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in graft patency, limb salvage, major and minor bleeding rates in patients undergoing infrainguinal bypass surgery. Five randomized-controlled trials (RCTs; n = 3746 patients) comparing VKA versus non-VKA treatment outcomes in patients undergoing infrainguinal bypass surgery were analyzed. The VKA treatment was associated with improved graft patency rates when a vein graft was used (risk ratio [RR]: 0.74; P = .0004), while there was no difference with prosthetic grafts (RR: 1.07; P = .39). The VKA treatment was also associated with improved limb salvage rates (RR: 0.33; P = .0008). Major and minor bleeding complications were higher in the VKA group. In conclusion, VKA treatment is associated with improved graft patency and limb salvage rates when a vein graft is used at the price of an increased risk of bleeding. Due to the inconsistent results, further well-designed RCTs are needed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAngiologySame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207