Validity of the Swedish Cardiac Surgery Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to validate the Swedish Cardiac Surgery Registry by reviewing the reported cardiac operations to assess the completeness and quality of the registered data and the EuroSCORE II variables. METHODS: A total of 5837 cardiac operations were reported to the Swedish Cardiac Surgery Registry in Sweden during 2015. A randomly selected sample of 753 patient records (13%) was scrutinized by 3 surgeons at all 8 units in Sweden performing open cardiac surgery in adults. RESULTS: Coverage was excellent with 99% [95% confidence interval (CI) 98-99%] of the performed procedures found in the registry. Reported waiting times for surgery were correct in 78% (95% CI 76-79%) of the cases. The main procedural code was correctly reported in 96% (95% CI 95-97%) of the cases. The correlation between reported and monitored logistic EuroSCORE II had a coefficient of 0.79 (95% CI 0.76-0.82), and the median difference in EuroSCORE II was 0% (interquartile range -0.4% to 0.4%). The majority of EuroSCORE II variables had good agreement and coherence; however, New York Heart Association functional class, preoperative renal dysfunction, left ventricular ejection fraction, Canadian Cardiovascular Society Class IV angina and poor mobility were less robust. Postoperative complications were rare and in general had a high degree of completeness and agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of the variables in the national Swedish Cardiac Surgery Registry was excellent. Thus, the registry is a valuable source of data for quality studies and research. Some EuroSCORE II variables require improved and stricter definitions to obtain uniform reporting and high validity.
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 | 0.056 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".