Unstable angina does not increase mortality in coronary artery bypass graft surgery
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
INTRODUCTION: Coronary artery bypass graft is often the treatment of choice for patients who suffer from unstable angina. We do not know whether this condition adds morbidity in this scenario. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft with unstable angina framework with patients who underwent coronary artery bypass graft showed no unstable angina. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. Unstable angina was defined as acute coronary syndrome without ST elevation and without enzymatic alteration and/or class IV angina. RESULTS: Between February 1996 and July 2010, to 2,818 isolated coronary artery bypass graft performed, 1,016 (36.1%) patients had unstable angina. Multivariate analysis showed that patients with preoperative unstable angina used more medications such as acetylsalicylic acid, beta-blocker, heparin (anticoagulation), nitrate and less need for diuretics than patients without unstable angina. Patients with unstable angina used increased monitoring with Swan-Ganz and support with intra-aortic balloon than stable patients. On outcomes, required longer hospitalization (P=0.030) and had a lower death rate (P=0.018) in the post-coronary artery bypass graft alone. CONCLUSION: Submit patients to coronary artery bypass graft in the presence of acute coronary syndrome such as unstable angina did not increase the mortality rate.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it