What has happened to multiple arterial grafting in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a well-established therapy for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, with excellent short- and medium-term results. This is best illustrated by studies comparing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) with CABG surgery, where CABG continues to offer better event-free survival. However, there has been increasing concern about the long-term patency of vein grafts utilized for CABG when compared with arterial grafts. Some have suggested that revascularization with arterial grafts rather than vein grafts may result in improved outcomes following CABG. This is particularly important when one considers that graft occlusion can result in recurrence of disabling angina, rehospitalization, reintervention and death. To date, however, multiple arterial grafts have yet to become the standard approach for patients undergoing CABG. This is best exemplified by reports from large registries suggesting that the use of multiple arterial grafting is limited to approximately 10% of all patients undergoing CABG. In this article, we will provide some of the evidence outlining the risk and benefits of multiple arterial grafting, but more importantly, begin to explore why the utilization of multiple arterial grafting does not appear to be increasing significantly.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".