Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Scottish dedicated aortic service was established in 2018.We present medium term survival outcomes for patients who have undergone a total aortic arch replacement procedure followed by either an open or endovascular second stage procedure to treat complex arch and thoracoabdominal aortic disease.Thirty-three consecutive patients who underwent either elective or emergency total arch replacement followed by a second stage procedure between 2018 and 2022 were included.These data were analysed using the R programming software.Survival analysis was performed through generation of Kaplan Meier curves, with censoring at either death or date of last follow-up.Taking the date of total arch replacement as day zero, open second stage repair had a one year survival of 93% and two year survival of 81%.Endovascular second stage repair had a one year survival of 87% and a 2 year survival of 80%.Median time between first and second stage repair was 203 days (IQR 72:311).In this cohort there is no evidence of a medium term survival difference between open and endovascular second stage procedure following total arch replacement p = 0.83.This small observational cohort has limitations, and significant confounding exists since surgical options were often influenced by underlying patient factors.These data add to an understanding of survival outcomes in a complex surgical domain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".