Moderate mitral regurgitation at the time of coronary bypass surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) is a common finding in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In this review, we summarize the current evidence on the optimal management of this condition. RECENT FINDINGS: In recent years, several randomized clinical trials have assessed the impact of concomitant restrictive mitral annuloplasty at the time of CABG on reverse left ventricular remodeling, IMR reduction and clinical outcomes. SUMMARY: Surgical revascularization alone is a conservative strategy that reduces IMR in a significant proportion of patients. Concomitant restrictive annuloplasty provides better relief of mitral regurgitation in the immediate postoperative period, at the cost of increased perioperative morbidity. The only major randomized trial on the issue of moderate IMR published to date showed no difference in reverse left ventricular remodeling at 1 year between these two approaches. There are insufficient data in the literature to support the routine addition of mitral valve repair to CABG in patients with moderate IMR.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".