THE IMPACT OF DIABETES ON MECHANICAL CIRCULATORY SUPPORT OUTCOMES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOS: Although diabetes is considered a relative contraindication to cardiac transplantation (Tx), similar criteria need not apply to left ventricular assist support (LVAS). This study examined the impact of diabetes on clinical outcomes with mechanical circulatory support. METHODS: Data from controlled studies with the Novacor LVAS were examined to assess the outcomes in diabetic and non-diabetic recipients. RESULTS: Diabetic recipients were less frequently transplanted than non-diabetics (42% versus 62%, p=0.0012). The adjusted estimate of relative risk of death (odds ratio) if diabetic was 2.196 (95% confidence limit 1.208–3.994, p=0.0099). However, baseline data showed additional risk factors i.e. diabetic recipients were significantly older than non-diabetics (p <0.001) and had more patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (IHD) (p=0.0092). The duration of implant prior to transplant was shorter in diabetics (p=0.0939). CONCLUSIONS: Although, the beneficial impact of LVAD therapy was reduced in diabetics, these patients had additional risk factors that would negatively impact outcome. Measures such as stringent glycemic control in the pre- and perioperative period, that have been shown to favorably influence cardiac surgery outcomes, are being evaluated.Table
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".