Temporal trends in mortality of aortic dissection and rupture in the UK, Japan, the USA and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Aortic dissection and aortic aneurysm rupture are aortic emergencies and their clinical outcomes have improved over the past two decades; however, whether this has translated into lower mortality across countries remains an open question. The purpose of this study was to compare mortality trends from aortic dissection and rupture between the UK, Japan, the USA and Canada. METHODS: We analysed the WHO mortality database to determine trends in mortality from aortic dissection and rupture in four countries from 2000 to 2019. Age-standardised mortality rates per 100 000 persons were calculated, and annual percentage change was estimated using joinpoint regression. RESULTS: Age-standardised mortality rates per 100 000 persons from aortic dissection and rupture in 2019 were 1.04 and 1.80 in the UK, 2.66 and 1.16 in Japan, 0.76 and 0.52 in the USA, and 0.67 and 0.81 in Canada, respectively. There was significantly decreasing trends in age-standardised mortality from aortic rupture in all four countries and decreasing trends in age-standardised mortality from aortic dissection in the UK over the study period. There was significantly increasing trends in mortality from aortic dissection in Japan over the study period. Joinpoint regression identified significant changes in the aortic dissection trends from decreasing to increasing in the USA from 2010 and Canada from 2012. In sensitivity analyses stratified by sex, similar trends were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Trends in mortality from aortic rupture are decreasing; however, mortality from aortic dissection is increasing in Japan, the USA and Canada. Further study to explain these trends is warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".