Pulsatile versus non-pulsatile flow to reduce cognitive decline after coronary artery bypass surgery: A randomized prospective clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this prospective study, we aimed to compare the effect of pulsatile and non-pulsatile flow on the cognitive functions in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. METHODS: Patients scheduled for their first coronary artery bypass surgery (n = 148) were randomly assigned to the pulsatile flow group (Group A, n = 75) or non-pulsatil group (Group B, n = 73). Cognitive performance was assessed with (MoCA) montreal cognitive assessment test performed by psychologists before coronary artery bypass surgery and 1 month after the operation. RESULTS: Mild cognitive impairment was seen in 12 (16%) patients and serious cognitive impairment was seen in 1 (1.33%) patient in the pulsatile flow group. In the other group, mild cognitive impairment was detected in 23 (31.50%) patients and serious cognitive decline was found in 3 (4.10%) patients. Mean MoCA scores were 25.86 ± 2.62 in group A and 22.12 ± 2.20 in group B. The difference between two groups was statistically significant (P = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that pulsatile flow has beneficial effects to decrease cognitive dysfunction in patients undergoing on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.
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 | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".