Prophylactic coronary artery revascularisation before elective vascular surgery did not improve long term survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
McFalls EO, Ward HB, Moritz TE, et al . Coronary-artery revascularization before elective major vascular surgery. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2795–804. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) who are scheduled for elective major vascular surgery, does prophylactic coronary artery revascularisation reduce long term, all cause mortality? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★☆ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★★☆ Internal medicine ★★★★★★☆ Cardiology ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial (RCT) (Coronary Artery Revascularization Prophylaxis [CARP] trial). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: {concealed*}†. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: blinded ({investigators}† and the endpoints committee that validated all outcomes).* ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: median 2.7 years. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: 18 Veterans Affairs medical centres in the US. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients: 510 patients (mean age 66 y, 98% men) with stable CAD (⩾70% stenosis in ⩾1 major coronary artery suitable for revascularisation) who were scheduled for elective major vascular operation for an expanding abdominal aortic aneurysm or severe symptoms of … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNew%2BEngland%2BJournal%2Bof%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DNEJM%26rft.issn%253D0028-4793%26rft.aulast%253DMcFalls%26rft.auinit1%253DE.%2BO.%26rft.volume%253D351%26rft.issue%253D27%26rft.spage%253D2795%26rft.epage%253D2804%26rft.atitle%253DCoronary-Artery%2BRevascularization%2Bbefore%2BElective%2BMajor%2BVascular%2BSurgery%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa041905%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15625331%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa041905&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15625331&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F10%2F4%2F114.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000226004300004&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | medium |
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".