MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970614648 · doi:10.1016/s1474-5151(09)60101-8

51 Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Harvest Site and Post-Op Recovery in Women

2009· article· en· W1970614648 on OpenAlexaff
Faye S. Routledge, Ross T. Tsuyuki, Marilou Hervas‐Malo, Pamela LeBlanc, Judith McFetridge-Durdle, Kathryn King

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArteryCardiologyInternal medicineCoronary artery bypass surgerySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To examine the relationships between coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) harvest site (saphenous, internal mammary arteries (IMA) or both) and surgery-related pain, functional status and health services utilization in women at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 12 months post-operatively. Methods: This was a sub-study of the Women's Recovery from Sternotomy Trial (WREST; registration number ISRCTN 47669580) which tested the use of a novel undergarment for women following first-time sternotomy. Women (222) who underwent CABG surgery or CABG plus valve surgery and completed the 12 month follow-up survey were included in these analyses. Harvest site data were collected through a health record audit and categorized into (1) left internal mammary artery (LIMA) only, (2) bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMA), (3) saphenous vein only, or (4) saphenous vein and LIMA or BIMA. Blinded centrally located research assistants collected data on primary outcomes related to surgery-related pain (numeric rating scale), functional status (Health Assessment Questionnaire), and health services utilization (including pain medication use; by standardized interview) at 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 12 months following CABG surgery.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular NursingSame topicCardiovascular Issues in PregnancyFrench-language works237,207