MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397334662

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery in New Zealand's Auckland region: a comparison between the clinical priority assessment criteria score and the actual clinical priority assigned.

2006· article· en· W2397334662 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary Seddon, Joanna Broad, Sue Crengle, Dale Bramley, Rod Jackson, Harvey White

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortAnginaCoronary artery diseaseCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyCoronary artery bypass surgeryEthnic groupUnstable anginaEmergency medicineInternal medicineDemographyArteryMyocardial infarction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To describe the cohort of patients waiting for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) surgery in the Auckland region; compare the Clinical Priority Assessment Criteria (CPAC) score with the actual priority assigned; and to assess the impact of a patient's demographic characteristics on the CPAC score and the assigned priority. METHODS: An electronic register was developed to capture all patients who had a CPAC form completed for isolated CABG surgery during the period June 2002 to September 2004 in the Auckland region. CPAC scores and clinical priority assigned were collected from the CABG booking form. Demographic characteristics came from the booking form (age, gender) or linkage via the National Health Index (NHI) number (ethnicity, deprivation score). RESULTS: The cohort displayed severe coronary artery disease and symptoms: 70% had class 3 or class 4 angina; 89% had their ability to work, live independently, or care for dependents threatened; 65% had three-vessel coronary disease; and 26% had left-main coronary disease. The CPAC score correlated only modestly with the actual clinical priority assigned, with an extremely wide range of scores for any given clinical priority. The mean CPAC score varied by the age of the patient, level of deprivation, and ethnicity--with higher mean scores among male patients who were Maori, Pacific, or more socioeconomically deprived. Clinical priority varied less by demographic characteristics than did the CPAC score, except more women than men were assigned the 'emergency' category. Despite higher CPAC scores for Maori and Pacific men, these did not translate to greater urgency in clinical priority. CONCLUSIONS: The CPAC scoring system is used to limit access onto the CABG surgery waiting list in Auckland, but is not used to prioritise patients as to the urgency of surgery once on the list. The challenge is to determine why clinicians do not consider that the CPAC score is adequate to prioritise the urgency of surgery and to build in a process whereby any such score can be continuously evaluated and improved. We have demonstrated that the establishment of an electronic register of such patients can provide timely analysis of patterns of practice and could be used on a national scale to improve future CPAC scoring systems.

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)0.004
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 score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207