Physiologic effects of first-time sitting among male patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the physiologic effects of sitting among post-operative coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) male patients. METHODS: A prospective, repeated measures non-experimental design was used. Power analysis was used to calculate sample size based on pilot data from 19 subjects. Fifty-five males over the age of 18 years and having first-time CABG surgery were recruited. HR, BP, and SaO2 data were collected from the Marquette bedside monitor. SvO2 was measured by a blood gas sample from the pulmonary artery catheter. Baseline measurements were obtained on all subjects while supine in bed. Measurements were repeated immediately on sitting, after five minutes, after resuming the supine position, and again after 10 minutes. RESULTS: A repeated-measures ANOVA showed a significant time effect for HR (p < 0.001), SBP (p < 0.001), DBP (p < 0.001), MAP (p < 0.001), and SvO2 (p < 0.001), but not for SaO2. CONCLUSIONS: When post-operative CABG male patients sit on the side of the bed for the first time, they experience an increase in HR and BP. Sitting involves increased oxygen consumption as evidenced by the drop in SvO2. Most patients recover to their baseline levels within 10 minutes of returning to the supine position. Nurses must be cognizant that this routine intervention may not be innocuous. Close monitoring of patients is essential and, with some, a graduated approach to sitting should be considered.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".