MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308366161 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2207899

Surgery or Endovascular Therapy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia

2022· article· en· W4308366161 on OpenAlexafffund
Alik Farber, Matthew T. Menard, Michael S. Conte, John A. Kaufman, Richard J. Powell, Niteesh K. Choudhry, Taye H. Hamza, Susan F. Assmann, Mark A. Creager, Mark Cziraky, Michael D. Dake, Michael R. Jaff, Diane Reid, Flora S. Siami, George Sopko, Christopher J. White, Max van Over, Michael B. Strong, Maria F. Villarreal, Michelle McKean, Ezana Azene, Amir F. Azarbal, Andrew Barleben, David K. Chew, Leonardo Clavijo, Yvan Douville, Laura Findeiss, Nitin Garg, Warren J. Gasper, Kristina A. Giles, Philip P. Goodney, Beau M. Hawkins, Christine Herman, Jeffrey Kalish, Matthew C. Koopmann, Igor Laskowski, Carlos Mena‐Hurtado, Raghu L. Motaganahalli, Vincent L. Rowe, Andres Schanzer, Peter A. Schneider, Jeffrey J. Siracuse, Maarit Venermo, Kenneth Rosenfield

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Artery Disease Management
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie UniversityUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteHealth Sciences, University of ArizonaSchool of Medicine, Indiana UniversityAudrey and Theodor Geisel School of Medicine at DartmouthUniversity of Oklahoma Health Sciences CenterUniversity of California, San DiegoSchool of Medicine, Emory UniversityDartmouth CollegeUniversity of OklahomaHelsingin YliopistoSchool of Medicine, Boston UniversityUniversity of Southern CaliforniaYale UniversityUniversité LavalBrigham and Women's HospitalEmory UniversityUniversity of California, San FranciscoDalhousie UniversityMassachusetts General Hospital
KeywordsMedicineRevascularizationIschemiaAmputationCritical limb ischemiaSurgeryLimb ischemiaPerfusionLimb amputationCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) require revascularization to improve limb perfusion and thereby limit the risk of amputation. It is uncertain whether an initial strategy of endovascular therapy or surgical revascularization for CLTI is superior for improving limb outcomes. METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we enrolled 1830 patients with CLTI and infrainguinal peripheral artery disease in two parallel-cohort trials. Patients who had a single segment of great saphenous vein that could be used for surgery were assigned to cohort 1. Patients who needed an alternative bypass conduit were assigned to cohort 2. The primary outcome was a composite of a major adverse limb event - which was defined as amputation above the ankle or a major limb reintervention (a new bypass graft or graft revision, thrombectomy, or thrombolysis) - or death from any cause. RESULTS: In cohort 1, after a median follow-up of 2.7 years, a primary-outcome event occurred in 302 of 709 patients (42.6%) in the surgical group and in 408 of 711 patients (57.4%) in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.79; P<0.001). In cohort 2, a primary-outcome event occurred in 83 of 194 patients (42.8%) in the surgical group and in 95 of 199 patients (47.7%) in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.06; P = 0.12) after a median follow-up of 1.6 years. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups in the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CLTI who had an adequate great saphenous vein for surgical revascularization (cohort 1), the incidence of a major adverse limb event or death was significantly lower in the surgical group than in the endovascular group. Among the patients who lacked an adequate saphenous vein conduit (cohort 2), the outcomes in the two groups were similar. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; BEST-CLI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02060630.).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations820
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicPeripheral Artery Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207