OBJECTIVE: To document and compare the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) by Cana- dian cardiac surgeons at coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) against a critical literature analysis. DESIGN: A multiple choice survey and a structured literature review. DATA SOURCES: Seventy-seven surgeons and 272 publications selected from the English literature between
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DATA SYNTHESIS: No methodologically sound natural history studies were found to document an increased risk of stroke from ACS after CABG. There were no randomized controlled studies to guide treatment recommendations. Pooled data for stroke or death did not support CEA for risk reduction from ACS at CABG (relative risk 0.9, p = 0.5). Ninety-four percent of surgeons believed that the literature is insufficient to support the routine use of CEA to reduce the risk of stroke from ACS after CABG. Despite this, 20% of surgeons advocated CEA for this purpose. CONCLUSION: The management of ACS at CABG by the majority of Canadian cardiac surgeons is consistent with the results of the literature review; however, significant management variation exists.
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 | 0.056 | 0.222 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".