Re: Preoperative intra-aortic counterpulsation in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the study by Pilarczyk et al. [1] on the use of intra-aortic counterpulsation in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the authors performed a meta-analysis looking at nine randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). Among these nine RCTs, three of them were written by Christenson et al. [2–4] in 1997. Upon closer examination of these three articles, Christenson et al. [3] looked at a series of 52 patients in a single centre in Switzerland between June 1994 and March 1996. These were all high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing myocardial revascularization [coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)]. In the second article, Christenson et al. [4] looked at 33 patients with CAD undergoing CABG in a single centre between June 1994 and March 1996. These patients had a preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤40% and established arterial hypertension with left-ventricular hypertrophy. In the third article, Christenson et al. [2] looked at 48 patients in a single centre between June 1994 and October 1996. These patients underwent redo CABG with an LVEF of ≤40%, unstable angina at the time of surgery, left main stem stenosis ≥70% or a combination thereof. It appears that there is a significant overlap of patients between these three articles. The second article [4] is a subgroup with an LVEF of ≤40% from the first article [3]. The third article [2] is also a subgroup with only redo CABG from the first article with the addition of possibly some patients from the period of March 1996 to October 1996. Therefore, I don't think that Pilarczyk et al. [1] should consider the three articles as separate populations in the meta-analysis. The population described by Christenson et al. [3] would be over-represented on the forest plot and skew the data. In Figure 2, Comparison 1 looked at the incidence of in-hospital mortality, the three studies by Christenson et al. skewed the data in favour of the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) group. In Figure 3, Comparison 1 looked at the incidence of low cardiac output state and the overall result favoured IABP. However, three out of the four studies that had a statistically significant odds ratio were based on Christenson et al.'s studies.
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 | 0.012 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".