MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 14598: Multiple Arterial Coronary Bypass Grafting is Associated With Improved Survival in Females

2020· article· en· W3102817179 on OpenAlexaffabout
Derrick Y. Tam, Rodolfo V. Rocha, Jiming Fang, Maral Ouzounian, Joanna Chikwe, Jennifer S. Lawton, Dennis T. Ko, Peter C. Austin, Mario Gaudino, Stephen E. Fremes

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePropensity score matchingCardiologyInternal medicineHazard ratioMyocardial infarctionRevascularizationArteryCoronary artery diseaseStroke (engine)Proportional hazards modelBypass graftingSurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Multiple arterial grafting (MAG) in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is associated with improved survival and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in observational studies of mostly males. It is not known whether the MAG is beneficial in females. Herein, we compared the late clinical outcomes of MAG versus single arterial grafting (SAG) in females undergoing CABG for multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) Methods: Clinical and administrative databases for Ontario, Canada, were linked to obtain all female patients with angiographic evidence of left main, triple, or double vessel disease undergoing isolated non-emergent primary CABG from 2008-2019. Baseline characteristics were compared and 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to account for differences. 30-day mortality was compared in the matched groups. Late mortality and MACCE ( composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and death) was compared between the matched groups with a stratified log rank test and Cox-proportional hazard model. Results: In total 2,961 and 7,954 females underwent CABG with MAG and SAG respectively for multivessel CAD. Prior to propensity-score matching, compared to SAG, those that underwent MAG were younger (66.0 vs. 68.9 years) and had less comorbidities. After propensity-score matching, 2,446 well-matched pairs were formed. In matched patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (1.6% vs 1.8%, P=0.43) between MAG and SAG. The median and maximum follow-up was 5.0 and 11.0 years respectively. Over the entire follow-up, MAG was associated with improved survival (Figure, hazard ratio (HR): 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75-0.98) and freedom from MACCE (HR: 0.85, 95%CI: 0.76-0.95). Conclusions: MAG was associated with improved survival and freedom from MACCE and should be considered for female patients with good life expectancy requiring CABG.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→