Left main revascularization: an evidence-based reconciliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery are two very different procedures with varying early and late risks and benefits. For many patients with left main coronary artery disease, the choice between PCI and CABG will be agreed upon by all specialists. For example, CABG may be strongly preferred by the heart team if extensive non-left main-related coronary artery disease is present (high SYNTAX score), and PCI may be strongly preferred if multiple clinical comorbidities are present (e.g. prior stroke, lung disease, frailty). For other patients in whom revascularization can be completed safely with both procedures (i.e. equipoise is present) there will be substantial and comparable long-term improvements in survival and quality of life after both PCI and CABG. In such cases, patient preference regarding the early vs. late trade-offs of the procedures (safety profile of PCI vs. durability of CABG) should inform clinical decision-making. AKI, acute kidney injury; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; MI, myocardial infarction.
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 | 0.172 | 0.313 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".