Consecutive 170 coronary artery bypass graftings in the treatment of coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To retrospectively review the experience and early clinical results of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Method CABG was performed on 170 consecutive patients (152 male,18 female), age ranged from 35 to 80 years (mean,66.7 years). 97% of them had multiple coronary vessels disease. Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) were equal to or lower than 45% in 81 patients and less than 30% in 21 patients among them. 84% of patients had class III or IV preoperative angina. All patients received CABG through middle sternotomy under cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) except one who received minimal invasive direct coronary bypass without CPB. The average number of grafts were 3.13 and the infernal mammary artery were used in 41 patients and the saphenous veins in 129. Post-operatively intraaortic balloon pump was required in 3 cases. Result There was no operative mortality. All patients recovered and were discharged. 94% of patients are angina free and 6.0% patients in class I-II angina at a mean follow up period of 14.8 months. Conclusion CABG is a safe and effective way for the treatment of coronary heart disease 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".