MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149019779 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v6n3p186

On Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Versus Off Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Review

2014· review· en· W2149019779 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhammad Shahzeb Khan, Mohammad Yousuful Islam, Muhammad Umer Ahmed, Faizan Imran Bawany, Asadullah Khan, Mohammad Hussham Arshad

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiopulmonary bypassOff-pump coronary artery bypassArteryCardiologyRevascularizationCoronary artery bypass surgeryInternal medicineSurgeryBypass graftingMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are two basic ways of performing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG): on pump CABG and off pump CABG. Off pump CABG is relatively a newer procedure to on-pump CABG and does not require the use of the cardiopulmonary bypass machine. On pump CABG is the more traditional method of performing bypass surgery. However its resultant inflammatory effects cause renal dysfunction, gastrointestinal distress and cardiac abnormalities which have forced the surgeons to look for alternatives to the procedure. An extensive literature search revealed that on pump CABG causes better revascularization as compared to off pump CABG while off pump CABG has a much lower post operative morbidity and mortality especially in high risk patients. We suggest that the technique used should depend on the ease of the surgeon doing the operation as both the methods seem almost equally efficient according to the review.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207