ÜÇ FARKLI RİSK SKORLAMA SİSTEMİNİN KORONER ARTER BAYPAS GREFTLEME YAPILAN HASTALARDA MORTALİTE ÖNGÖRMEDEKİ ETKİNLİKLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI The Comparison of the Efficacy of Three Different Risk-Scoring Systems on Predicting the Mortality Rates of Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Giriş: Çalışmamızda dünya genelinde kabul görmüş üç skorlama sistemini koroner arter bypass cerrahisi geçirenhastalarda karşılaştırarak bu sistemlerin globalleşmesine katkı sağlamak ve hasta populasyonumuza enuygun risk değerlendirme sistemini tespit etmek için bu çalışmayı planladık.Materyal-Metod: Ocak 2003 - Aralık 2004 tarihleri arasında Türkiye Yüksek İhtisas Hastanesi Kalp ve DamarCerrahisi Kliniği’nde ardışık olarak koroner arter bypass greftleme (KABG) operasyonu yapılan 2120 hasta çalışmayadahil edildi. Bu incelemede ameliyat dönemi ve ameliyattan sonra 30 gün içinde olan ölümler mortaliteolarak kabul edildi. Hastalar çalışmada kullanılan preoperatif risk değerlendirme sistemlerinin öngördüğüşekilde düşük, orta ve yüksek risk gruplarına ayrıldı. Kullanılan risk değerlendirme sistemlerinde beklenen vegözlenen mortaliteler karşılaştırıldı.Bulgular: Her üç risk grubunda da gözlenen mortalite oranları ile beklenen mortalite oranları yönünden EuroSCOREsisteminde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark saptanmadı (p>0.05). Parsonnet ile yapılan değerlendirmededüşük ve orta risk grubunda gözlenen mortalite ve beklenen mortalite oranları yönünden istatistiksel olarakgözlenen mortalitenin az olması yönünde anlamlı bir fark görüldü (p<0,001), yüksek risk grubunda ise istatikselolarak anlamlı bir fark saptanmadı (p>0.05). Ontario Province Risk (OPR) sistemiyle yapılan değerlendirmedeher üç risk grubu içinde gözlenen ve beklenen mortalite oranları arasında düşük risk grubunda anlamlı farksaptanırken (p<0,001), orta ve yüksek risk grubunda anlamlı fark saptanmadı (p>0.05).Sonuç: EuroSCORE risk sınıflamasının belirli hasta grubunda literatür ile uyumlu sonuçlar verdiğini ve bu skorlamasisteminin bölgemizdeki KABG hasta popülasyonunda preoperatif risk değerlendirmesi için güvenilirolarak kullanılabileceğini söyleyebiliriz.Anahtar Sözcu¨kler: EuroSCORE; Ontario province risk; Parsonnet; Mortalite; Koroner arter baypas cerrahisiABSTRACTIntroduction: We aimed to compare the efficacy of three different well-known and commonly used mortalityrisk-scoring systems and to provide a more suitable scoring system for our patient population.Material-Method: A total of 2120 patients who had undergone a CABG operation in Türkiye Yüksek İhtisasHospital Cardiovascular Surgery Clinic between January 2003 – December 2004 included in this study. The inhospitaldeaths and the deaths in postoperative 30 days were accepted as mortality. The patients were dividedinto low, moderate and high-risk groups as the risk scoring systems prerequisites. The predicted mortalityrates by the risk scoring systems and the observed mortality rates were compared.Results: The observed mortality rates and the predicted mortality rates by EuroSCORE were similar betweenthe groups (p>0.05). The observed mortality rates of low and moderate risk groups were significantly lowerthan the predicted mortality rates with Parsonnet risk scoring system (p<0.001). In the high-risk group, theobserved mortality rates were not significantly different from the predicted mortality rates with the same riskscoring system (p>0.05). The predicted mortality rates with Ontario Province Risk (OPR) scoring system andobserved mortality rates in the low risk group were significantly different (p<0.001). In the moderate and highrisk groups, the observed mortality rates and predicted mortality rates with the OPR were not significantlydifferent (p>0.05).Conclusion: The EuroSCORE risk scoring system results were similar to the results in the literature. It is areliable way of risk prediction for the patients undergoing CABG surgery in our region.Keywords: EuroSCORE; Ontario province risk; Parsonnet; Mortality; Coronary artery bypass grafting
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".