Is management of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms consistent? A questionnaire-based survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complex abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a relatively common presentation to the vascular specialist. Despite this there is little consensus on how to manage the often comorbid group of patients. Recent advances in endovascular technology have led to the availability of multiple devices, many of which could be used to treat the same aneurysm. The aim of this study was to quantify this potential variability across vascular specialists from multiple countries. METHODS: An online survey was emailed to members of the Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland (VSGBI), the Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery (CSVS) and the Australian and New Zealand Society for Vascular Surgery (ANZSVS). The survey presented a vignette of a 63-year-old woman with significant respiratory comorbidity and a 54 mm juxtarenal AAA (7 mm neck). There were no other adverse morphological features for endovascular repair. The survey included images and questions related to management of the aneurysm. RESULTS: The survey received 238 responses; 61 from ANZSVS, 65 from CSVS and 112 from VSGBI. VSGBI specialists were significantly more likely to continue surveillance than both ANZSVS (odds ratio [OR] 3.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.61-7.65; P<0.001) and CSVS counterparts (OR 2.61, 95% CI: 1.29-5.47; P<0.01). ANZSVS specialists were significantly more likely to perform an endovascular repair than those from CSVS (OR 3.28, 95% CI: 1.50-7.40; P<0.01) and VSGBI (OR 3.65, 95% CI: 1.81-7.59; P<0.001). CSVS specialists were significantly more likely to manage the aneurysm with open surgery than colleagues from the VSGBI (OR 6.57, 95% CI: 2.58-18.46; P<0.001) and ANZSVS (OR 7.18, 95% CI: 2.22-30.79; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation in the management of a juxtarenal AAA between countries was observed. The same patient would be more likely to have an endovascular repair in Australia and New Zealand, open surgery in Canada and continuing surveillance in the UK and Ireland. This variation reflects the lack of long-term evidence and international consensus on the optimal management of complex AAA.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".