Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Review the recently published scientific evidence to support the decision-making process of revascularization strategy in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). RECENT FINDINGS: Recently published observational analyses have proven the superiority of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients presenting with other comorbidities together with DM, such as renal disease or heart failure. SUMMARY: Significant challenges and controversies surrounded the choice of the appropriate revascularization method in patients with DM and MVD over the last decades. FREEDOM trial was the first adequately powered randomized study to directly compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus CABG in the DM population, showing the superiority of CABG in the long-term follow-up. Subsequently, other studies confirmed that CABG is also preferable over PCI in diabetic patients with particular comorbidities, such as renal failure and left ventricular dysfunction, and also in patients with type 1 DM and in the setting of an early acute coronary syndrome. Finally, in 2018, an individual level data meta-analysis reported an expressive reduction in all-cause mortality when comparing CABG versus PCI in patients with DM and MVD enrolled in the most recent clinical trials (hazard ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.20-1.74, P = 0.0001).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".