It's not all about ISCHEMIA: the case for coronary artery bypass grafting in stable coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Guidelines for Coronary Artery Revascularization have raised concerns on the survival benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and appropriate conduit selection for CABG. This review summarizes the evidence supporting CABG for stable CAD and use of the radial artery as a conduit for CABG. RECENT FINDINGS: CABG has consistently demonstrated a survival benefit over GDMT for patients with stable multivessel CAD. These benefits were more pronounced in patients with diabetes and/or anatomically complex coronary artery disease. The recently published International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial was not designed to and did not include an appropriate patient population to compare revascularization with CABG to GDMT. These results should thus be viewed in the context of previously published studies. Furthermore, increasing evidence suggests that use of a radial artery in CABG is associated with reduced myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. This should be considered when selecting the appropriate conduits based on underlying patient factors. SUMMARY: Readers should be cautious when applying these guidelines broadly. Appropriate consideration of patient and anatomic factors, and in consultation with a multidisciplinary heart team, is important to achieve the best outcomes for 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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".