Abstract 6: Relationship between Center-Volume and Complication Rates in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There is evidence that center-volume of cases affects outcomes for both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and stenting (CAS). We sought to evaluate the effect of center-volume by site on complication rates in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST). Methods In CREST, the primary composite endpoint was any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days or ipsilateral stroke in follow-up. Certification was achieved by 477 surgeons performing more than 12 procedures per year with complication rates less than 3% for asymptomatic patients and less than 5% for symptomatic patients; 224 interventionists were certified after a rigorous training and credentialing process that included a lead-in registry. CREST centers were divided into tertiles based on the number of patients enrolled into the study, with Group 1 composed of 82 sites each enrolling <25 patients, Group 2 with 24 sites enrolling 25-51 patients and Group 3 with 10 sites enrolling >51 patients. Differences in periprocedural event rates for the primary composite endpoint and its components were compared using logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, and symptomatic status within site-volume level. Results The safety of CAS and CEA did not vary by site-volume during the periprocedural period as indicated by occurrence of the primary endpoint (p=0.54) or by stroke and death (p=0.87). Conclusion Complication rates (as indicated by the primary endpoint and its components) were low in CREST and were not associated with center-volume. The data are consistent with the value of rigorous training and credentialing in trials evaluating endovascular devices and surgical procedures; because of ongoing entry of new interventionalists and surgeons into CREST, operator experience independent of center-volume cannot be addressed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".