Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Coronary artery bypass grafting in the elderly patient is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and mortality. The avoidance of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in this population is potentially beneficial. We examined our initial experience with off-pump multivessel coronary artery revascularization in patients aged 70 years and older. METHODS: In a consecutive series of 300 off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) operations performed by a single surgeon between 1996 and 1999, 98 patients were aged 70 years and older. These patients were compared with a consecutive cohort of 497 patients aged 70 years and older operated on with CPB in the same institution from 1995 to 1996, period where OPCAB surgery was not performed in our institution. RESULTS: Patients in the beating heart group were older (75+/-4 vs. 74+/-3 years; P=0.001). Gender distribution and other preoperative risk factors were comparable for the two groups. On average, 3.0+/-0.8 and 2.8+/-0.7 grafts per patient were completed in the OPCAB and the CPB groups, respectively (P=0.007). Perioperative mortality rates (OPCAB group, 3.1%; CPB group, 3.6%), perioperative myocardial infarction (OPCAB, 2.0%; CPB, 5.1%) and neurologic events (OPCAB, 1.0%; CPB, 3.2%) were comparable for the two groups. The incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation was lower in the OPCAB group (42 vs. 54%; P=0.05). The need for allogenic blood transfusions was significantly less in the OPCAB group (53 vs. 82%; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients aged 70 years and older, multivessel OPCAB surgery is associated with lower rates of postoperative atrial fibrillation and reduced transfusion requirements. Multivessel OPCAB in the elderly patient is an acceptable alternative to procedures performed with CPB.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".