Off Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Versus Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent development of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) graft surgical techniques has led to numerous observational and several randomized trials that have investigated outcomes compared with the current gold standard of conventional on-pump coronary bypass (CCAB) graft surgery. This systematic review assesses the current randomized trials that compare OPCAB and CCAB. Numerous end points were investigated, including mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, blood transfusions, wound infections, and renal failure. In addition to these important outcomes, resource utilization markers were also examined such as hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, and duration of intubation/ventilation. Finally, when level I evidence from randomized trials was unavailable, level II evidence was examined. This was done for subgroup analysis, where currently no randomized trials exist, looking at OPCAB in high-risk patients. Recommendations were made as to who should receive OPCAB and the potential benefits in this patient 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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it