MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2462939667 · doi:10.1111/anae.13524

Delirium after transcatheter aortic valve implantation via the femoral or apical route

2016· article· en· W2462939667 on OpenAlexaff
Vivek Sharma, Rita Katznelson, Eric Horlick, Mark Osten, Rima Styra, Robert J. Cusimano, Jo Carroll, George Djaiani

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeliriumFemoral arteryAortic valveSurgeryCardiac catheterizationCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thought that delirium might be less frequent after transcatheter aortic valve implantation via the femoral artery compared with via the cardiac apex. We reviewed 210 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation between January 2009 and October 2014. The proportion (95% CI) of patients who suffered delirium in the 3 days after valve implantation were: 10 (3-16%) in 105 patients who had transfemoral implantation; and 35 (25-45%) in 105 patients who had transapical implantation, p = 0.0001. The variables that independently associated with postoperative delirium were age, male sex and the transapical approach. The median (IQR [range]) hospital stay was 7 (5-13 [2-41]) days and 10 (7-15 [2-64]) days, respectively, p = 0.004. Future trials should focus on different peri-operative management strategies to reduce delirium rates after transcatheter aortic valve implantation, particularly in older men having implantations via the cardiac apex.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiaSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207