In patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure, the addition of coronary-artery bypass grafting to medical therapy has no effect on the overall risk of death from any cause, but assessment of suitability for surgery may predict survival benefit in subgroups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: Velazquez EJ, Lee KL, Deja MA, et al. Coronary-artery bypass surgery in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1607–16.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] More than 5.8 million Americans and 500 000 Canadians are currently living with heart failure (HF). The 5-year survival rate is a dismal 40–50%. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common cause of HF, but the role of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) in HF has never been definitively established. The Surgical Treatment for Ischaemic HF trial aimed to determine whether CABG improves survival in patients with CAD and impaired left ventricular (LV) function (hypothesis 1). A total of 1212 adults with CAD amenable to CABG and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% were enrolled from 127 sites across 26 countries. The original intended enrolment of 2000 patients was revised due to slow enrolment rates, necessitating an increase in the duration of follow-up from … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNew%2BEngland%2BJournal%2Bof%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DNEJM%26rft.issn%253D0028-4793%26rft.aulast%253DVelazquez%26rft.auinit1%253DE.%2BJ.%26rft.volume%253D364%26rft.issue%253D17%26rft.spage%253D1607%26rft.epage%253D1616%26rft.atitle%253DCoronary-artery%2Bbypass%2Bsurgery%2Bin%2Bpatients%2Bwith%2Bleft%2Bventricular%2Bdysfunction.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa1100356%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F21463150%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1100356&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=21463150&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F17%2F6%2F178.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000289940400007&link_type=ISI
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.004 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".