The impact of different biocompatible coated cardiopulmonary bypass circuits on inflammatory response and oxidative stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was to compare the impact of different biocompatible coated circuits on inflammatory response and oxidative stress induced during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Seventy-eight patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with CPB were randomly assigned to five groups with different biocompatible coated circuits: Trillium, Bioline, Phosphorylcholine, Polymethoxyethyl acrylate (PMEA), and the uncoated control group. Blood was drawn at three different time points: before CPB, 6 and 72 hours post CPB. Unlike the Trillium group, serum levels of TNF-alpha in the Bioline and Phosphorylcholine groups significantly increased only at 72 hours post CPB (p < 0.05). Serum levels of IL-6 significantly increased at 6 and 72 hours post CPB in all groups (p < 0.01). The Trillium group showed a significant increase of IL-10 compared to the control group at 72 hours post CPB (p < 0.05). Serum levels of NOx in the Phosphorylcholine group significantly decreased at 6 hours post CPB compared to baseline (p < 0.05). Both the Bioline and Phosphorylcholine groups showed statistical decreases in serum NOx levels compared with other groups at 6 hours post CPB (p < 0.05). A significant difference in NOx levels between the Bioline and the control group was also observed at 72 hours post CPB. Myeloperoxidase levels were significantly elevated at 6 and 72 hours post CPB in all groups (p < 0.05). Inflammatory response and oxidative stress are elevated during CABG with CPB. Heparin-coated and the Phosphorylcholine-coated circuits induce less inflammatory responses and oxidative stress compared to other circuits.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".