Endovascular and open repair did not differ for mortality rates at 2 years in abdominal aortic aneurysm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TherapeuticsNovember 1, 2005Endovascular and open repair did not differ for mortality rates at 2 years in abdominal aortic aneurysmClaudio S. Cinà, MD, P. J. Devereaux, MDClaudio S. Cinà, MDMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (C.S.C., P.J.D.)Search for more papers by this author, P. J. Devereaux, MDMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (C.S.C., P.J.D.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJC-2005-143-3-064 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationBlankensteijn JD, de Jong SE, Prinssen M, et al. Two-year outcomes after conventional or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2398-405. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15944424Clinical Impact RatingsHospitalists: Critical Care: References1 Forbes TL, DeRose G, Kribs SW, Harris KA. Cumulative sum failure analysis of the learning curve with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2004;39:102-8. [PMID: 14718826] Google Scholar2 Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Clarke M, et al. Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005;330:88. [PMID: 15637373] Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (C.S.C., P.J.D.) PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails November 1, 2005Volume 143, Issue 3Page: 64KeywordsAneurysmsCritical careDeath ratesHospitalistsQuality of lifeSafetySurgeonsSurgery ePublished: 9 March 2020 Issue Published: November 1, 2005 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2005 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".