The radial artery: Results and technical considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The radial artery (RA) is a frequently used conduit for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). We review the results of the use of the RA in CABG patients and discuss the unique technical considerations when using this conduit. METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed through December 2017 on the comparative efficacy of the RA to other conduits and technical considerations for the use of the RA in CABG surgery. RESULTS: When compared to the saphenous vein graft, the RA proved to be superior in graft patency in multiple randomized clinical trials. The RA was associated with better clinical outcomes in observational studies. The debate over the second best arterial conduit remains unresolved between the RA and the right internal thoracic artery. Preoperative evaluation of the patient's coronary anatomy and the quality of the RA is imperative to achieve the best clinical outcome with RA grafting. CONCLUSION: With careful preoperative planning and attention to technical details, the RA is an excellent choice as the second conduit for CABG surgery.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".