Comparative efficacy of coronary artery bypass surgery vs. percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease with or without chronic kidney disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal method of coronary revascularization among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) complicated by chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains unknown. PURPOSE: To examine the impact of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes with and without CKD. METHODS: . Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between PCI and CABG groups within each CKD stratum. The primary endpoint was the composite occurrence of all-cause death, stroke or myocardial infarction [major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE)]. Event rates were estimated at 5 years using the Kaplan-Meier approach and hazard ratios (HRs) for CABG (vs. PCI) were generated using Cox regression. RESULTS: = 0.83). Stroke rates were non-significantly higher with CABG whereas rates of MI and repeat revascularization were significantly reduced with CABG in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to PCI, the effects of CABG on long-term risks for MACCE observed in the FREEDOM trial are preserved among patients with mild to moderate CKD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".