Protective effects of propofol, isoflurane and their combination on myocardium for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To observe the cardioprotective effects of propofol, isoflurane and their combination by comparing changes of plasma concentrations of cTnI, CK-MB, SOD and MDA during open heart surgery. METHODS: Sixty patients, scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass graft, were randomly divided into control, propofol, isoflurane and their combined use groups, respectively. In Group propofol, isoflurane or combined use groups, propofol, isoflurane or propofol combined with isoflurane were given respectively. The venous blood samples were taken to measure plasma concentrations of cTnI, CK-MB, SOD and MDA before CPB beginning (T 0), and 30 min after release of aortic cross-clamp (T 1), 4 h (T 2), 24 h(T 3), and 48 h(T 4) after CPB stop. RESULTS: The plasma concentrations of cTnI, CK-MB and MDA in all patients after T 1 increased in different extent, the plasma concentrations of cTnI and MDA in group propofol, isoflurane and combined use groups at T 2 and T 3 were much lower than those of group control, the plasma concentration of cTnI in group M at T 3 was much lower than that in group propofol(P 0.05), and the rate of heart automatic beating after release of aortic cross-clamp in combined use groups was much higher than those in the other groups(P 0.05). CONCLUSION: Anesthetic uses of propofol and isoflurane, specially combined use, can reduce myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury induced by oxygen free radical in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".