Utility of a smartphone application in assessing palmar circulation prior to radial artery harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting: rationale and design of the randomised CAPITAL iRADIAL-CABG trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is emerging evidence supporting the use of the radial artery (RA) as a preferred secondary conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as it is associated with higher rates of graft patency at 5 years when compared with saphenous vein grafts (SVG). The modified Allen's test (MAT) is traditionally regarded as the standard of care in the assessment of ulnar artery (UA) patency prior to RA harvesting. Unfortunately, due to high false-positive rates, a substantial number of pre-CABG patients are found to have an abnormal MAT despite normal UA patency, resulting in inappropriate exclusion from RA harvesting. The SVG is generally used in its place when this occurs, resulting in potentially lower rates of long-term graft patency. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CAPITAL iRADIAL-CABG trial is currently enrolling participants 18 years of age or older undergoing CABG for whom the treating physician is considering the use of an RA conduit. Eligible patients will be randomised in a 1:1 fashion to MAT or smartphone-based photoplethysmography application assessment to assess collateral palmar circulation prior to RA harvesting. The primary outcome of the trial is the use of the RA as a conduit during CABG. The primary safety outcome is postoperative palmar ischaemia as determined by clinical assessment or requirement of vascular intervention. Secondary outcomes include vascular complications, early graft failure, need for rescue percutaneous coronary intervention during the index hospitalisation and a composite cardiovascular outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death prior to discharge from hospital. A total of 236 participants are planned to be recruited. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Ottawa Heart Science Network Research Ethics Board (approval number 20180865-01H). The study results will be disseminated via conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03810729.
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 | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".