Coronary artery bypass grafting for the treatment of coronary artery disease in 116 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To retrospectively review the experience and early clinical results of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods We have performed CABG on 116 consecutive patients (male 102, female 14), aged from 35 to 80 years with a mean of 67 4 years. 97% of them have multiple coronary artery disease. Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) was equal to or lower than 45% in 63 patients and in 19 patients EF was less than 30%. 63% patients had class III or IV preoperative angina. All patients received CABG with middle sternotomy under the support of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) except one who received minimally invasive direct coronary bypass (MIDCAB) without CPB. The mean number of grafts was 3 1 and the internal mammary arteries (IMA) were used in 23 patients along with the saphenous veins. Postoperative intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) was required in 2 cases.Results Postoperative mortality was 0/116. All patients recorverd and discharged with 94% patients being angina free and 6 0% patients in class I angina at a mean follow up period of 24 9 months. Conclusion The good short term results in this small group indicate that CABG is a safe and effective way for the treatment of CAD with acceptable morbidity and mortality.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".