MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791160311 · doi:10.1177/154431670703100402

Fishing for BASS: Surveying Primary Physicians in the Barriers to Aortic Screening Study

2007· article· en· W2791160311 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Dueck, Elizabeth M. Wooster, Douglas L. Wooster

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Vascular Ultrasound · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic aneurysm repair treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbdominal aortic aneurysmAsymptomaticFamily medicineCancer screeningPopulationPrimary careDiseaseInternal medicineCancerEmergency medicineSurgeryAneurysmEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction In response to published guidelines for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening, primary care physicians were surveyed to determine attitudes and identify barriers to screening. Methods Six hundred standardized, structured surveys were distributed to all primary care practitioners in a defined geographic area. Participation was voluntary, and results were anonymous. Results A total of 10.7% of surveys were returned. All questions were answered by >93% of respondents. A total of 71.9% of respondents were general practitioners; 94.4% worked in a community setting. 60.9% saw >11 male patients per week who were older than 65 years of age. Responses indicated support for identifying asymptomatic AAAs; only 4.7% thought their patients were too sick to undergo repair, 0% felt their patients would be unwilling to undergo repair, and 0% felt the risk of rupture was too small to justify repair. Access to vascular surgical services was available to more than 75% in the hospital closest to them, and to 100% in the city in which they practice. A total of 42.2% were aware of recommendations regarding AAA screening, and 65.6% of physicians routinely screened eligible patients for AAAs. Screening for other diseases was more frequent. Respondents routinely screened their patients for breast cancer (79.1%), prostate cancer (80.5%), colon cancer (80.9%), and hypertension (83.7%); 42.9% routinely screened for peripheral artery disease. Conclusion Screening for AAAs lags significantly behind other major screening programs. Although primary practitioners are routinely exposed to the target population, a minority of patients are screened. Neither access to a vascular surgeon nor knowledge about the importance of AAAs appears to be limiting factors. Despite recent publicity, almost 60% of primary care physicians remain unaware of screening guidelines for AAAs. Of those who were aware of guidelines, only one third follow them. Further research and education is required to increase the efficacy of screening.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Vascular UltrasoundSame topicAortic aneurysm repair treatmentsFrench-language works237,207