MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2416167108

Population rates of invasive cardiac procedures in British Columbia, 1995 to 2001.

2004· article· en· W2416167108 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gordon E. Pate, Karin H. Humphries, Mona Izadnegahdar, Min Gao, Michael L. Kiely, Ronald G. Carere

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study examined the rates of coronary angiography (CA), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in British Columbia (BC) between 1995 and 2001. METHODS: Data sources were as follows: CABG--BC Cardiac Registries; CA and PCI--BC Medical Services Plan; acute coronary syndromes (ACS)--Hospital Separation database; population data--BC Statistics. All rates were age and sex standardized per 100,000 BC resident adults over 20 years of age. RESULTS: The rate of diagnostic CA increased from 352 per 100,000 in 1995 to 400 per 100,000 in 2001 (P<0.01). The rate of PCI increased from 101 per 100,000 in 1995 to 154 per 100,000 in 2001 (P<0.01). Single stage 'ad hoc' PCI increased from 38% in 1995 to 68% in 2001. The rate of CABG remained stable at between 70 and 79 per 100,000. There was a downward trend in the annual hospitalized incidence of ACS (477 to 430 per 100,000, P=0.04). The incidence of ACS and the rates of CA, PCI and CABG were higher for men in all age groups. PCI was more common than CABG in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of ACS in BC is falling. The rates of diagnostic CA and PCI are increasing. The latter finding may reflect an appropriate evidence-based response to data supporting greater application of CA following ACS after publication of several studies supporting a routine invasive approach. The PCI rate is rising compared with the CABG rate, likely reflecting changes in patient selection and improved PCI technology, as well as a limited ability of the system to provide surgical procedures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research→French-language works237,207→