Is there a long-term survival benefit with on pump coronary artery bypass grafting?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has become the gold standard of care for the treatment of coronary artery disease involving multiple vessels (1). This involves a choice as to whether to perform the surgery on (with cardiopulmonary bypass, CPB) or off pump (on the beating heart, without CPB). Each technique has its advantages and disadvantages. On pump surgery provides a motionless operative field, but can be associated with a number of complications including myocardial ischemic injury, coagulation disorders, neurocognitive deficits, strokes and a systemic inflammatory response (2). In contrast off pump surgery avoids aortic manipulation and, although more technically demanding (2), has been helped by the invention of stabilizing devices (3). The debate as to which approach is superior has been raging for over 40 years. Indeed, an excellent example of the division in opinion is the conduct of 90% of CABG off pump in India (2) compared to only 20% worldwide (4) and 13% in the US and Canada (5).
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
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".