MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2935762571 · doi:10.1080/24748706.2019.1591077

Comparison of 5 Risk Scales in the Results of Aortic Valvular Surgery With Rapid Deployment Prostheses

2019· article· en· W2935762571 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStructural Heart · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuroSCOREMedicineLogistic regressionInternal medicineStenosisCardiologySurgeryCardiac surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Aortic prostheses with rapid deployment have recently emerged with shorter surgical times and less invasive approaches for the treatment of aortic stenosis. The appearance of the treatment via TAVR has caused the calculation of the preoperative risk to become more interesting to select the right treatment. We studied the prognostic utility of 5 surgical risk scales (Euroscore logistic, EuroScore II, STSAVR score, NNEAVRscore and OntarioScore) to detect mortality in a cohort of patients who received rapid deployment aortic prostheses. Methods: From September 2012 to November 2016 we reviewed the patients who received Edwards Intuity prostheses. We calculated 5 risk scales assessing their effectiveness in hospital mortality. Results: Seventy-two patients (68% males, 75.6 ± 4.8 years). Two patients died (2.8%). The mean values of the Euroscore logistic, EuroScore 2, STSAVRScore, NNEAVRScore and OntarioScore were: 7.7 ± 4.9; 2.6 ± 1.9; 3 ± 1.7; 3.5 ± 2.6 and 5.5 ± 1.3 respectively. For mortality discrimination the results were: EuroScore logistic: 0.92 (95% CI 0.83-1), EuroScore 2: 0.83 (95% CI 0.64-1), STSAVRScore: 0.93 (95% CI % 0.86-1), NNEAVRScore: 0.65 (95% CI 0.33-0.97), OntarioScore: 0.93 (95% CI 0.84-1). Regarding calibration, we found that the P value for the Hosmer-Lemeshowed test was: EuroScore logistic: 0.85, EuroScore 2: 0.73, STSAVRScore: 0.93, NNEAVRscore: 0.37 and OntarioScore: 0. 62. Conclusions: The STSAVRScore presented the best discrimination for hospital mortality, although the Euroscores and the Ontario Score behaved well. The STSAVRScore was the scale that achieved the best calibration at the different levels of risk.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.318 · 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