MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408982936 · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezaf116

Steroids in aortic dissection surgery

2025· letter· en· W4408982936 on OpenAlexaff
Domenico Paparella, Richard Whitlock

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2025
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAortic dissectionDissection (medical)MedicineAortic surgerySurgeryAorta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Editor, We read with interest the article by Luo et al. [1]. In a prospective randomized trial involving patients with acute aortic dissection, they demonstrated that the administration of methylprednisolone in the immediate postoperative period reduces organ injury measured as a significant reduction in SOFA score. Of note is the numerical decline in mortality and acute renal failure, although not statistically significant. Neither the SIRS trial [2] nor the DECS trial [3], with adequate sample size, demonstrated clinical benefits of this magnitude; this large discrepancy warrants discussion. It is likely that neither in SIRS nor in DECS treatment with steroids was specifically assigned to patients who could benefit from it, i.e. patients who produced an excessive inflammatory response to cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). We have recently shown that after cardiac surgery, inflammation detected with clinical parameters occurs in ∼25% of subjects and that in these patients, the incidence of 30-day mortality and postoperative complications is significantly higher than in non-inflamed patients, with postoperative inflammation being an independent predictor of 30-day mortality [4]. Factors such as preoperative neutrophils, preoperative C-reactive protein, intraoperative haemoglobin and lactate levels and duration on CPB were associated with postoperative inflammation. Many of these factors are altered in patients with aortic dissection undergoing a complex and prolonged intervention often performed in deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. Studies have shown that (and Luo et al. have partially confirmed this) aortic dissection patients arrive at the operation with a very activated inflammatory state [5] as well as with an intense activation of coagulation and fibrinolysis [6]. This is probably determined by the flow in the false lumen and by possible ischaemic phenomena induced by malperfusion. The operation then accentuates these reactions to a degree much higher than that normally observed in elective interventions with CPB.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0360.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207