MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021846183 · doi:10.1159/000173482

Employment following Aortocoronary Bypass Surgery in Young Patients

2008· article· en· W2021846183 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Danchin, Paul David, P. C. Robert, Martial G. Bourassa

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnginaBypass surgeryMultivariate analysisCoronary artery bypass surgeryDiseaseSurgeryPhysical therapyInternal medicineArteryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The work status following aortocoronary bypass surgery was evaluated by questionnaire in 268 male patients aged 44 years or less, after a mean follow-up of 38 months. During follow-up, 87% resumed work; when analyzed on a yearly basis, the rate of patients at work peaked at 2 years (80%) and then declined to 70% at 4 years. Multivariate analyses showed that the two most important preoperative variables predictive of work status after surgery were (1) the length of the period of not working, and (2) the educational level. Other influential factors were the presence of an associated vascular disease and the type of work, annual income and functional class. The postoperative health status, as described by the patient, was also closely correlated with return to work. Recurrence of angina after surgery impaired work resumption. A majority of patients who were never gainfully employed after surgery attributed the reason to their physician, while 93% of them stated that they received financial aid from the government.

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)0.002
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
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiologySame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207