MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3132891791 · doi:10.1139/cjpp-2020-0432

Remodeling of ipsilateral ulnar artery after radial artery harvesting for coronary artery bypass graft

2021· article· en· W3132891791 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Melchior Luiz Lima, Héber S.M. Silva, Lourival N. Lougon, Fanilda Souto Barros, Walter J. Gomes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUlnar arteryRadial arteryCardiologyArteryInternal medicineLumen (anatomy)Brachial arteryForearmRevascularizationSurgeryMyocardial infarctionBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are controversies in the literature on the blood supply to the forearm after surgical removal of the radial artery in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The objective was to investigate the arterial remodeling of the ulnar artery after the removal of the radial artery in myocardial revascularization by means of ultrasound examination with color Doppler in the pre- and post-operative periods. This paper describes an observational prospective study of the remodeling of the left brachial and ulnar arteries (donor arm) in 103 right-handed non-consecutive adult patients undergoing CABG with removal of the ipsilateral radial artery using the color Doppler ultrasound examination. In the ulnar artery, a significant increase (P < 0.05) was seen in the following measurements: lumen diameter by 13%, lumen area by 26%, peak systolic flow by 40%, and average flow by 46%. Intima-media thickness measured in the ulnar artery did not show a statistically significant difference (P = 0.22), except in diabetic patients (P = 0.007). We conclude that the ulnar artery undergoes positive physiological remodeling, adapting to the new requirements of chronic increase in flow after the ipsilateral removal of the radial artery to serve as a graft in CABG. There was no evidence of increased intima-media thickness, except in diabetic 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 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology→Same topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques→French-language works237,207→