MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2931692056 · doi:10.1177/1708538119829582

The impact of randomized trial results on abdominal aortic aneurysm repair rates from 2003 to 2016: A population-based time-series analysis

2019· article· en· W2931692056 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueVascular · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic aneurysm repair treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook HospitalPublic Health OntarioToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersPhysicians' Services Incorporated Foundation
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryAbdominal aortic aneurysmEndovascular aneurysm repairAortic repairRandomized controlled trialPopulationAneurysm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives The uptake of endovascular aortic repair for elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is not well studied. We aimed to examine the trends in open surgical repair and endovascular aortic repair of eAAA and rAAA and to examine the effects of randomized trial publications on elective open surgical repair and endovascular aortic repair rates. Methods We conducted a population-based time-series analysis of eAAA and rAAA repairs in Ontario, Canada from 2003 to 2016. We examined changes in overall and approach-specific rates of eAAA and rAAA repair using exponential smoothing models. Interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models were fit to the eAAA rates to examine the impact of randomized trial results on these rates. Results We identified 19,489 eAAA (12,232 open (63%) and 7257 endovascular (37%)) and 2732 rAAA (2466 open (90%) and 266 endovascular (10%)) repairs from 2003 to 2016. The rate of eAAA repair declined from 6.39/100,000 in 2003 to 5.59/100,000 in 2016 (13% decrease, p = 0.17). The rate of elective open surgical repair decreased nearly three-fold from 6.07/100,000 to 2.12/100,000 ( p < 0.0001), while elective endovascular aortic repair increased approximately 10-fold (0.32/100,000 to 3.47/100,000, p < 0.0001). The rate of ruptured open surgical repair decreased from 1.62/100,000 to 0.37/100,000 ( p < 0.44), while ruptured endovascular aortic repair uptake increased (0.00/100,000 to 0.12/100,000, p < 0.25). The mid-term results of the DREAM and EVAR-1 trials were associated with a decrease in the rate of elective open surgical repair decline after 2010 ( p = 0.01). Conclusions While elective open surgical repair use has significantly decreased from 2003 to 2016, elective endovascular aortic repair use has significantly increased. The DREAM and EVAR-1 results significantly impacted the observed rates of elective open surgical repair only. The reasons for these trends require further characterization.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.274 · 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