Trends in sex-specific differences following aortic arch repair: results from the Canadian Thoracic Aortic Collaborative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".