Review of the differences in outcomes between males and females after revascularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to compare outcomes of males and females undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), off-pump CABG (OPCAB), minimally invasive direct CABG (MIDCAB), and robotic total endoscopic CABG (TECAB). RECENT FINDINGS: Females demonstrated increased rates of morbidity and mortality post PCI and CABG. In studies that performed risk adjustments, these differences were reduced. Although inferior outcomes were observed for females in some measures, generally outcomes between males and females were comparable post OPCAB, MIDCAB, and TECAB. SUMMARY: Previous literature has demonstrated that females undergoing coronary revascularization experience inferior postoperative outcomes when compared to their male counterparts. The discrepancies between males and females narrow, but do not disappear when preoperative risks are accounted for and when considering minimally invasive approaches such as MIDCAB, OPCAB, and TECAB. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery has demonstrated numerous benefits with reduced morbidity, mortality, and shorter recovery times. In patients with increased comorbidities, minimally invasive approaches confer a greater advantage. As females often fall within this category, it is paramount that the diagnosis and referral process be optimized to account for preoperative differences to provide the most beneficial approach if the disparity between the sexes is to be addressed.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".