Arterial Grafts for Coronary Bypass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observational and randomized evidence shows that arterial grafts have better patency rates than saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) in coronary artery bypass grafting. Observational studies suggest that the use of multiple arterial grafts is associated with longer postoperative survival, but this must be interpreted in the context of treatment allocation bias and hidden confounders intrinsic to the study designs. Recently, a pooled analysis of 6 randomized trials comparing the radial artery with the SVG as the second conduit and the largest randomized trial comparing the use of single and bilateral internal thoracic arteries have provided apparently divergent results about a clinical benefit with the use of >1 arterial conduit. However, both analyses have methodological limitations that may have influenced their results. At present, it is unclear whether the well-documented increased patency rate of arterial grafts translates into clinical benefits in the majority of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. A large randomized trial testing the arterial grafts hypothesis (ROMA [Randomized Comparison of the Clinical Outcome of Single Versus Multiple Arterial Grafts]) is underway and will report the results in a few years.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".