MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412439331 · doi:10.1016/j.jvsvi.2025.100270

Written patient resources for complex endovascular aneurysm repair and challenging to read and understand

2025· article· en· W4412439331 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Caryn Dooner, Miranda Witheford

Bibliographic record

VenueJVS-Vascular Insights · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalKingston General Hospital
FundersSociety for Vascular SurgeryUniversity Health Network
KeywordsEndovascular aneurysm repairAneurysmMedicineComputer scienceSurgeryAbdominal aortic aneurysm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Health literacy is a critical mediator of cardiovascular risk factor control and outcomes 1–3 . Complex Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair (cEVAR) represents a challenging subject for providers to describe and for patients to understand. There have been no studies examining readability or understandability of patient-facing resources for cEVAR. In Canada, 49% of adults have a reading level below grade 12 4 . The 2024 United States National literacy Institute assessment reported a 21% illiteracy rate, with 54% of Americans reading below 6 th grade 5 . This provides a rationale for the recommendation of the National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association, that patient-facing educational resources fall below a 6 th grade reading level. Objective We hypothesized that the readability and understandability of patient-facing resources on cEVAR would exceed the national reading level of Canadians and Americans. Methods Two common electronic search engines were used to find patient-facing resources pertaining to cEVAR, resulting in 55 non-redundant resources. Plain text copies of each resource were assessed using the common readability indices Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Simple Measures of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and their understandability analyzed with the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and PEMAT-Audiovisual Tool (PEMAT-AV). Results The FKGL generated a mean reading grade level of 9.3 ± 2.61, and SMOG generated a mean reading grade level of 11.9 ± 2.0. The mean PEMAT understandability percentage was 54.2 ± 19.0. By SMOG analysis, 45% of the resources (or 25 of 55 resources) required a grade 12 education. Conclusions Every resource examined was above the grade level recommendations of the CDC/NIH/AHA/AHRQ/AMA. On average, only 54% of any resource content was understandable. Limitations include the assumption that (1), health resources with appropriate literacy levels will generate changes in behaviour/outcomes of for patients with aneurysm disease, and (2) there is likely variable health literacy in the AAA patient population.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJVS-Vascular InsightsSame topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207