Determining Esophageal Anatomy With A New Electroanatomical Mapping System.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Postoperative occurrence of AF has been associated with less favorable outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and may result in increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Objectives : A focused clinical question was designed and a Meta-analysis of published studies was performed to identify the effect of preoperative use of statins on the occurrence of AF after cardiac surgery. Methods : Using the Medline database, the Cochrane clinical trials database and online clinical trial databases, we reviewed all RCTs and observational studies examining the effect of statins on AF occurrence following cardiac surgery. We searched for literature published before April 2009 and earlier. Results : This analysis identified 6 studies (observational studies) which examined the effect of preoperative use of statins on AF occurrence following cardiac surgery, involving 10165 patients. Contradictory to most of previous studies, the overall outcomes suggested that the statins group did not have a significant decrease in AF occurrence following cardiac surgery comparing to control group (P = 0.19). Conclusions : The preoperative medication of statins showed no significant decrease in AF occurrence following cardiac surgery in this Meta-analysis result. More prospective studies and researches are needed to explore and demonstrate the accurate mechanism and effect of statins on postoperative AF.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".