The Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trajectory: Gender Differences Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past several decades there has been substantial research interest in gender differences within the coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery trajectory. However, the debate persists regarding the reasons why women may have less favorable outcomes. As part of a larger study, we explored gender differences in the physiological and psychosocial dimensions of pre-operative status, and post-operative morbidity and quality of life outcomes in CABG surgery patients. A purposive sample of patients on the waiting list for CABG surgery (N=195; 157 males; 38 females) was followed for 6 months post-surgery. The results reflected consistent evidence of a male advantage across the CABG surgery trajectory. Though gender differences in age were non-significant, females had significantly more post-operative respiratory complications (p=0.005), a longer hospital stay (p=0.003), more symptoms at 2 weeks post-discharge, and a lower quality of life at 6 weeks and 6 months post-discharge. Our findings provide important insights for improving CABG surgery outcomes for both men and women. In particular, implementing creative strategies to improve physical functioning pre-operatively, may improve post-operative quality of life outcomes in this population.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".