Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) operation is one of the few remaining operations/interventions on diseased arteries that are not routinely verified during or immediately after the procedure. This review answers the 'how', 'when' and 'why' of intraoperative CABG assessment. RECENT FINDINGS: More recent than new literature on this topic, is the increased interest in quality assurance of CABG. This is most likely due to reports in the last 5 years suggesting CABG superiority to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for improved mid-term and long-term outcomes; for example, for patients with diabetes mellitus (Freedom Trial by Farkouh in 2012), and for patients with SYNTAX score ≥ 33 (SYNTAX Trial by Mohr in 2013). Possibly CABG is re-emerging from the era-of-better-and-better-stents and is now deemed worthy of improvement. SUMMARY: In order to fully compliment PCI, the operative major adverse cardiac event rate of CABG must rival that of PCI. In order to reduce technical errors, it is best practice to perform intra-operative assessment of bypasses, especially since we have the tools.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".