Early outcome of coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with unstable angina.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unstable angina is a common cause of admission to hospitals. There is conflicting evidence on the need and success of urgent coronary revascularization in such cases. This study was conducted to evaluate the early post-operative morbidity and mortality of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) in patients with unstable angina. METHODS: This cross sectional descriptive study was conducted at Choudry Pervaiz Elahi Institute of Cardiology, Multan. The data of the all the patients who had undergone CABG for unstable angina, between February 2009 and March 2010, was collected and analysed. RESULTS: Total 35 patients of unstable angina had undergone CABG (M=29, F=6). Mean age was 58.25±9.62. Sixty five percent of the patients were from New York Heart Association (NYHA) class-IV. Regarding pre-operative risk factors, 35% had diabetes mellitus (DM), 22% had previous Myocardial infarction (MI), 3% had pulmonary Hypertension, 3% had uncontrolled hyperlipidemia, 40% had positive history of smoking, 17% had positive family history of IHD and 82% had triple vessel disease. None of the patients died. Mild ionotropic support was required in 48% of the patients. Two patients had acute confusional state; none of the patients had stroke or renal failure requiring dialysis. However 4 patients had disturbed renal profile. Pulmonary complications occurred in one patient. CONCLUSION: Coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with unstable angina has comparable morbidity and mortality in our setup and should be performed where indicated
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".