Weight and Patients’ Decision to Undergo Cardiac 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
Obese patients are less likely to have cardiac surgery than normal weight patients. This could be due to physician or patient decision-making. We undertook a qualitative descriptive study to explore the influence of obesity on patients' decision-making to have cardiac surgery. Forty-seven people referred for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery were theoretically sampled. Twelve people had declined cardiac surgery. Participants underwent in-depth interviews aimed at exploring their decision-making process. Data were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Though patients' weight did not play a role in their decision, their relationship with their cardiologist/surgeon, the rapidity and orchestration of the diagnosis and treatment, appraisal of risks and benefits, previous experience with other illness or others who had cardiac surgery, and openness to other alternatives had an impact. It is possible that there is a lack of comfort or acknowledgment by all parties in discussing the influence of weight on CABG surgery risks.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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