Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening in an academic family practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening rates in the 6 months before and after the introduction of updated Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) guidelines to determine effects on practice patterns, as well as to determine whether certain patient characteristics impact AAA screening rates. Design Retrospective chart review. Setting Academic family health centre in London, Ont. Participants Male patients between the ages of 65 and 80. Main outcome measures Screening rates for AAA before and after the guideline update were compared using the normal approximation of the binomial distribution. Analysis of demographic characteristic effects on screening rates was completed with the Fisher exact test. Number of visits to the clinic with a primary care provider within the study period and imaging type were collected. Results Of the 266 patients included in the study, 160 patients were eligible for screening at the start of the study period, 6 months before publication of the CTFPHC AAA guideline. Individuals eligible for screening visited the clinic an average (SD) of 2.44 (1.82) times in the 6 months before and 2.66 (1.99) times in the 6 months after. Overall, 69 individuals had AAA screening completed and 9 had a discussion of AAA screening without any imaging, for a total uptake rate of 88.5% for those who had screening recommended. The overall imaging rate was 48.9%. There was no statistically significant difference in screening rates between the time periods (P=.337) among those eligible for screening. For demographic characteristics for risk stratification, 7 individuals had a documented family history, of whom 5 had imaging of their abdominal aorta performed, plus 1 additional individual who had screening recommended but not completed. This was not statistically significant relative to the total population (P=.0598). Positive smoking status (active or ex-smoker) was more common, with 135 individuals having a relevant smoking history. Approximately half of these current and former smokers (68 individuals [50.4%]) had any sort of abdominal aortic imaging performed or recommended, which was not statistically significantly different compared with non-smokers (62 of 126 imaging performed or recommended, 49.2%; P=.9016). Conclusion Screening practices did not change appreciably with the introduction of the CTFPHC AAA screening guidelines. Further research is needed to improve AAA screening rates. It is worth exploring electronic medical record–based reminders, nursing staff involvement in screening, screening programs via public health, and point-of-care ultrasound screening in a primary care setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".