MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024609708 · doi:10.1159/000174019

Atherosclerosis after Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Results of Recent Studies and Recommendations Regarding Prevention

2008· review· en· W2024609708 on OpenAlexaff
Martial G. Bourassa, Lucien Campeau, Jacques Lesp eacute rance, Charles Solymoss

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArteryCardiologyVeinBypass graftingInternal medicineAngiographyCoronary atherosclerosisCoronary artery bypass surgeryBypass surgerySurgeryOcclusionCoronary artery disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atherosclerosis is the most frequent cause of occlusion of aortocoronary saphenous vein grafts between 5 and 10 years after coronary artery bypass surgery. The typical atherosclerotic plaque appears between 1 and 3 years after operation and, at a mean of 5 years, histologic changes of atherosclerosis are present in 21% of grafts and in 27% of patients. Only approximately 60% of saphenous vein grafts remain patent at repeat angiography between 10 and 12 years after bypass surgery; 45% of patent grafts show atherosclerotic changes at angiography and 43% of patients show evidence of atherosclerosis in one or more saphenous vein grafts. We do not know whether the development or the progression of these atherosclerotic changes can be modified; however, the data currently available suggest that the administration of platelet inhibitors and/or of lipid lowering agents offer two promising avenues of investigation in patients undergoing aortocoronary saphenous vein bypass surgery. Until this has been carefully studied, the internal mammary artery should remain the preferred conduit for aortocoronary bypass grafting, whenever possible.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiologySame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207