MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313982702 · doi:10.1177/021849230201000304

Coronary Artery Bypass in Patients with Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction

2002· article· en· W2313982702 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dronamraju Dilip, Mangu Hanumantha Rao, Abha Chandra, M S Rao, D. Rajasekhar, Sribhasyam Venkateswara Prasad, Alladi Mohan

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionAnginaCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyCardiologyInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusCoronary artery diseaseArteryBypass surgeryBypass graftingCoronary artery bypass surgerySurgeryMyocardial infarctionHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We retrospectively reviewed the case records of 82 patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction < 30%) who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting between March 1993 and February 2000. They were aged 28 to 76 years (mean, 60 years), and 66 of them were male. Significant comorbid factors included hypertension (93%), diabetes mellitus (85%), and hypercholesterolemia (49%). The number of grafts used ranged from 1 to 3. The majority of the patients (91%) belonged to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class III. Coronary angiography revealed single-vessel (in 16% of the patients), double-vessel (52%), and triple-vessel disease (32%), and left main stem disease (18%). Seven patients (9%) died within 48 hours after surgery. The mean duration of hospital stay was 7 +/- 2 days. The 75 patients who survived were followed up for 3 months to 7 years. At the 1-year follow-up, 61 of the 68 patients (90%) who were alive moved up from angina class III to class I. Our observations suggest that coronary bypass carries an acceptable mortality risk and may offer a better quality of life in patients with poor ventricular function.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.250 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Cardiovascular and Thoracic AnnalsSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207