Clinical trials of coronary revascularization: coronary angioplasty vs. coronary bypass grafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the absence of diabetes mellitus, rates of survival and of survival free of myocardial infarction (MI) are almost identical among patients with multivessel disease assigned to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) versus those assigned to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) after 6.5 to 8 year follow-up period. Additional revascularization occurs 2.5 to 4.5 times more frequently in PTCA-treated than in CABG-treated patients and prevalence of angina is no longer statistically different between the two treatment groups. The excess health care costs of bypass surgery, which are important early after revascularization, almost disappear 5 to 8 years later. In patients with single vessel disease, survival free of MI is also comparable in both treatment groups at 5 years. Additional revasculariztion occurs two to four times more often in PTCA-treated than in CABG-treated patients and prevalence of angina does not differ between the two treatment groups. Thus, in nondiabetic patients with multivessel disease, the choice of a revascularization strategy rests on the patient's and treating physician's preference between the invasive nature of bypass surgery and the risk of recurrent procedures. In patients with single vessel disease, these long-term data suggest that bypass surgery is at least as safe and effective as coronary angioplasty and therefore may be a treatment option in selected cases.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".