MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P3967Influence of peri-operative stroke on 5-year mortality following open heart surgery

2017· article· en· W2761067349 on OpenAlexaff
Julian P. T. Higgins, Jamil Bashir, James G. Abel, Patrick Daniele, M.K. Lee, Karin H. Humphries

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalSt Mary's Hospital Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)PerioperativePeriSurgeryCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Predictors of stroke following cardiac surgery are well documented. However, the influence of stroke on mortality, as well as predictors of mortality following stroke, have not been well explored. Purpose: To assess the influence of non-fatal peri-operative stroke on long-term mortality following cardiac surgery. Additionally, for those surviving a peri-operative stroke, predictors associated with long-term mortality were explored. Methods: A provincial registry which prospectively captures all coronary interventions, was accessed to identify all residents, ≥20 years of age, undergoing primary isolated CABG, valve, or combined CABG/valve surgery between April 2007 and December 2012. Rates of peri-operative stroke (fatal and non-fatal) were estimated for each surgery type. Logistic models were used to explore factors associated with peri-operative stroke. For long-term survival, stroke included only non-fatal, peri-operative stroke. Kaplan-Meier survival curves estimated mortality up to 5 years stratified by stroke, and by surgery type. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of stroke on risk of mortality, by surgery type. Among stroke patients undergoing CABG, factors associated with 5-year mortality were also explored.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes→French-language works237,207→