Impact of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinical status and prognosis of patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection has dramatically changed in the recent years. Cardiovascular diseases can be related to combined antiretroviral therapy and to the aging of HIV-positive population, resulting in significant mortality and morbidity in those patients. It is crucial to understand whether the HIV-status affects the indications and outcomes of cardiac surgery. A literature search was conducted through electronic databases up to 15 May 2020 following PRISMA guidelines. Variables (i.e. patients characteristics) and endpoints (i.e. postoperative complications) were considered as defined in the original publications. All paper describing post-operative outcomes after cardiac surgery were included. Methodological quality of all included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the US Preventive Services Task Force grade. A total of eight studies were included in this systematic review; five studies discussed the outcomes of patients with HIV infection, while three studies compared results based on HIV status. All evidences derived from retrospective observational studies with high variability and poor-to-fair quality. Most patients underwent surgical myocardial revascularization. HIV status is not associated with differences in operative mortality (P = 0.32), postoperative mediastinitis (P = 0.30) or pulmonary infective complications (P = 0.67). Cardiac surgery can be considered safe in HIV-positive patients, and HIV status alone should not be considered as a contraindication for cardiac surgery and should not be considered a risk factor for postoperative mortality or perioperative complications. Further studies are required for patients with AIDS.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".