Mechanical circulatory support in the context of coronary artery bypass grafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With the continuous innovation in mechanical circulatory support as an option for the management of patients in cardiogenic shock from myocardial infarction, it is important to understand the current evidence and recommendations for the use of these devices for patients who require or underwent coronary artery bypass surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with cardiogenic shock who require or underwent coronary artery bypass surgery has not been well studied. Observational studies have shown that the use of intra-aortic balloon pump or percutaneous ventricular assist devices prior to revascularization lead to better survival. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) still carries significant risk of mortality and complications; the use of additional MCS devices for left ventricular unloading during ECMO improves outcomes. SUMMARY: MCS will continue to play an important role in coronary artery surgery patients. Multidisciplinary Cardiac Shock Team can assist in proper patient selection and device choice, whereas prospective clinical trials are required to provide evidence-based guidance towards the management of these patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".