Similarity of Ventricular Function in Patients Alive 5 Years After Randomization to Surgery or Angioplasty in the BARI Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a recognized determinant of survival in patients with coronary artery disease. In major trials comparing surgical and percutaneous revascularization approaches, the long-term effect of the coronary revascularization strategy on LVEF has not been reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the NHLBI-sponsored Bypass and Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) randomized trial comparing angioplasty and bypass surgery as initial treatment strategies, 1220 (75%) of the 1617 surviving randomized patients had their EF measured by radionuclide ventriculography 5 years after study entry. For the total study group, the 5-year EF in the CABG group (n=623) was 55.8+/-12.3, compared with 55.7+/-12.7 in PTCA group (n=597, P:=0.82). There was no significant difference in measured EF between the CABG group and the PTCA group within multiple subgroups determined by the presence or absence of diabetes, 3-vessel disease, complete revascularization, or prior myocardial infarction. In a multiple linear regression model developed to predict 5-year EF, treatment assignment to PTCA or CABG was not significant (P:=0.95). If an EF of 0 was imputed for patients who were dead and missing EF data, however, there was a higher EF in the CABG group (P:=0.0018) among diabetic patients only. CONCLUSIONS: In the BARI randomized trial, initial treatment assignment to angioplasty was not associated with any difference in long-term ventricular function compared with initial treatment assignment to surgery. These results apply, however, only to patients who were alive at 5 years.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".