Frequent change of procedure during coronary artery bypass surgery suggests insufficient preoperative diagnostic strategy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to evaluate how often and in what way surgeons change peroperatively their preoperative coronary artery bypass grafting strategy and to what degree these changes affect postoperative graft patency. A series of 109 patients with stable angina pectoris and at least one occluded coronary artery participated. The surgeon filled in a questionnaire pertaining to the planned localization and number of grafts. These estimates were compared to procedures actually performed and with the angiographic outcome six months after bypass surgery. Planned and actually inserted grafts disclosed a discrepancy in 22% of the patients, resulting in a lower or higher number of grafts than pre-operatively estimated. The difference in shift rates between the three sites, left anterior descending, left circumflex, and right coronary artery, was significant (P=0.014). Patency rates were highest when only preoperatively planned grafts were inserted. When shifts occurred, no matter in which direction, it resulted in a decreased patency rate of the inserted grafts. This finding was significant for LAD (P=0.037). Our findings might indicate the necessity of future studies with the use of scintigraphy or fractional flow reserve as physiological adjuncts to angiography for more targeted revascularization.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it