MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739571019 · doi:10.1177/1526602817722018

Endograft Infection After Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2017· review· en· W2739571019 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endovascular Therapy · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfectious Aortic and Vascular Conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalAbdominal aortic aneurysmMeta-analysisSurgeryIncidence (geometry)AneurysmEndovascular aneurysm repairAortic aneurysmInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To report a meta-analysis of the published evidence on the outcomes of aortic endograft infection after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: A search of electronic information sources (PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CENTRAL) and bibliographic reference lists identified 12 studies reporting on 362 patients (mean age 72 years; 279 men). The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Endpoints were 30-day/in-hospital mortality and follow-up mortality. Pooled estimates are reported with the 95% confidence interval (CI). The review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews in Health and Social Care (CRD42016034166). RESULTS: The incidence of graft infection after EVAR was 0.6% (95% CI 0.4% to 0.8%). The time from implantation to diagnosis ranged from 1 to 128 months (mean 25). The majority of patients (293, 81%) underwent surgical treatment (95% CI 77% to 83%); 9 (2.5%) patients (95% CI 21% to 43%) received conservative treatment. Aortic replacement with a prosthetic graft was performed in 58% (95% CI 52% to 62%), whereas cryopreserved allografts and autologous grafts were used in 31% (95% CI 28% to 33%) and 11% (95% CI% 8 to 14%), respectively. Less than half of the patients (40%) had emergency surgery. The pooled estimate of 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 26.6% (95% CI 16.9% to 39.2%). The pooled 30-day/in-hospital mortality for 9 patients treated conservatively was 63.3% (95% CI 30.7% to 87.0%). The pooled overall follow-up mortality was 45.7% (95% CI 36.4% to 55.4%) vs 58.6% (95% CI 28.8% to 83.3%) for the 9 patients receiving conservative treatment. CONCLUSION: Aortic endograft infection is a rare complication after EVAR. Surgical treatment with complete explantation of the infected endograft seems to be the optimal management in selected patients. Supportive medical treatment without surgical intervention has a significant associated mortality.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.041
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.277 · 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