MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long-term Outcomes of the Western Australian Trial of Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

2016· article· en· W2543369309 on OpenAlexaff
Kieran McCaul, Jonathan Brown, James A. Dickinson, Paul E. Norman

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Internal Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic aneurysm repair treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialPopulationRandomizationAbdominal aortic aneurysmSurgeryPediatricsInternal medicineAneurysm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Mortality from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) remains high. The benefit of screening older men for AAAs needs to be assessed in a range of health care settings. OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of screening for AAAs in men aged 64 to 83 years on mortality from AAAs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized clinical trial performed from April 1, 1996, through March 31, 1999, with a mean of 12.8 years of follow-up (range, 11.6-14.2 years) included a population-based sample from a single metropolitan region in Western Australia identified via the electoral roll. Data analysis was performed from June 1, 2015, to June 1, 2016. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization to an invitation to undergo ultrasonography of the abdominal aorta or a control group without invitation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Surgery for and mortality from AAA. RESULTS: A total of 49 801 men aged 64 to 83 years were identified for the study. Men living too far from screening centers (n = 8671) or who died before invitation (n = 2650) were excluded, resulting in 19 249 men in the invited group and 19 231 controls (mean [SD] age, 72.5 [4.6] years; 95% white). Of 19 249 men invited for screening, 12 203 (63.4%) attended. There were more elective operations (536 vs 414, P < .001) and fewer ruptured AAAs (72 vs 99, P = .04) in the invited group compared with the control group. Overall, there were 90 deaths from AAAs in the invited group (mortality rate, 47.86 per 100 000 person-years; 95% CI, 38.93-58.84) and 98 in the control group (52.53 per 100 000 person-years; 95% CI, 43.09-64.03) for a rate ratio of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.68-1.21). For men aged 65 to 74 years, the AAA mortality rate in the invited group was 34.52 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, 26.02-45.81) compared with 37.67 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, 28.71-49.44) in the control group for a rate ratio of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.62-1.36). The number needed to invite for screening to prevent 1 death from an AAA in 5 years was 4784 for men aged 64 to 83 years and 3290 for men aged 65 to 74 years. There were no meaningful differences in all-cause, cardiovascular, and other mortality risks. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of the electoral roll to identify and invite men aged 64 to 83 years for screening for AAAs had no significant effect on the overall mortality from AAAs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16171472.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations56
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Internal MedicineSame topicAortic aneurysm repair treatmentsFrench-language works237,207