The RADial artery International ALliance (RADIAL) extended follow-up study: rationale and study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is generally accepted that radial artery (RA) grafts have better mid-term patency rate compared to saphenous vein grafts. However, the clinical correlates of the improved patency rate are still debated. Observational studies have suggested increased survival and event-free survival for patients who receive an RA rather than a saphenous vein, but they are open to bias and confounders. The only evidence based on randomized data is a pooled meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trial comparing the RA and the saphenous vein published by the RADial artery International Alliance (RADIAL). In the RADIAL database, improved freedom from follow-up cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization) was found at 5-year follow-up in the RA arm. The most important limitation of the RADIAL analysis is that most of the included trials had an angiographic follow-up in the first 5 years and it is unclear whether the rate of repeat revascularization (the main driver of the composite outcome) was clinically indicated due to per-protocol angiographies. Here, we present the protocol for the long-term analysis of the RADIAL database. By extending the follow-up beyond the 5th postoperative year (all trials except 1 did not have angiographic follow-up beyond 5 years), we aim to provide data on the role of RA in coronary artery bypass surgery with respect to long-term outcomes.
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 | 0.033 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.013 |
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".