MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388924204 · doi:10.21037/acs-2023-adw-0163

Trends in sex-specific differences following aortic arch repair: results from the Canadian Thoracic Aortic Collaborative

2023· article· en· W4388924204 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Chung, Nitish Bhatt, Louis‐Mathieu Stevens, Rashmi Nedadur, Marina Ibrahim, Kiera Liblik, Michael Chu, Maral Ouzounian

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Cardiothoracic Surgery · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoQueen's UniversityUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAortic archAortic repairThoracic aortaCardiologyInternal medicineSurgeryAorta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Previous data have shown that sex-related differences exist in aortic arch surgery, with female patients experiencing worse outcomes. Over time, as surgical techniques and strategies have improved, these improvements have benefitted female patients. Using a multicenter national aortic registry from the Canadian Thoracic Aortic Collaborative (CTAC), we aimed to determine the relationship between sex and outcomes following aortic arch repair and to examine how these have changed over time. Methods: The multicenter prospective CTAC database of all aortic procedures performed under circulatory arrest from participating centers across Canada (n=9) was used. Patients were included who underwent elective or urgent/emergency arch reconstruction under circulatory arrest from 2002 to 2021. The primary composite endpoint was defined as the occurrence of one of the following endpoints: in-hospital mortality, stroke, dialysis-dependent renal failure, deep sternal wound infection, reoperation, or prolonged ventilation of >40 hours. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality, in-hospital stroke, and a modified version of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons-defined composite endpoint for mortality and major morbidity (MMOM). Results: A total of 2,592 patients who underwent aortic arch repair between 2002 and 2021 (31.4% female and 68.6% male patients). Operative mortality decreased through the study period for female patients. No change in operative mortality was observed in male patients or following elective repair. The composite endpoint improved for female patients over time in both elective and urgent surgery, while for male patients, rates improved for elective surgery and remained stable for urgent. Ultimately, female sex was not an independent predictor of adverse outcomes following aortic arch repair. Conclusions: Our results are congruent with existing data and are highly encouraging. It shows that multilevel improvements in our approach to aortic arch surgery have helped to serve female patients who were previously disadvantaged.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Cardiothoracic SurgerySame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207