Double arterial vs. single axillary cannulation in acute type A aortic dissections: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the effects of double (axillary and femoral) vs. single (axillary) cannulation on early outcomes of acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). Materials & methods: Meta-analysis using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases through August 23, 2023. Focused on operative mortality, postoperative stroke, re-exploration for bleeding, spinal cord injury, and renal replacement therapy. Results: Among 5 propensity score-matched studies with 2127 patients, double cannulation showed comparable mortality and higher rates of postoperative stroke (pooled odds ratio: 1.69, 95% confidence interval: 1.19–2.39) and need for renal replacement therapy (pooled odds ratio: 1.35, 95% confidence interval: 1.13–1.60) compared with single cannulation. Conclusion: Double arterial cannulation in ATAAD surgery is associated with increased postoperative stroke and renal replacement therapy than single cannulation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".