Platelet preservation in cardiac surgery using minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation versus optimized cardiopulmonary bypass
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) is employed as a strategy to attenuate the physiologic disturbance caused by cardiopulmonary bypass. The aim of this study was to compare the coagulation profile of MiECC to an optimized conventional extracorporeal circuit (OpECC) with regards to platelet function, rotational thromboelastometry and blood product usage. Methods A retrospective analysis of coronary artery bypass grafting operations using either MiECC or OpECC was performed at a single institution. Results A total of 112 patients were included, with 61 receiving MiECC and 51 OpECC patients. OpECC patients had a significantly larger BSA (1.95+/- 0.22m2 vs 1.88 +/- 0.18m2, p = 0.034), than those who received MiECC. No difference between groups was observed regarding red blood cell, plasma, and platelet transfusions. Functional platelet count during the warming phase of cardiopulmonary bypass was found to be higher in the MiECC group ((136 (102–171) x10 9 /L vs 109 (94–136) x10 9 /L), p = 0.027), as were functional platelets as a percent of total platelet count ((86 (77–91)% vs 76 (63–82)%), p = 0.003). There were no significant differences between other outcomes such as operative mortality, incidence of stroke, and intensive care unit length of stay. Conclusion While we did not see a difference in blood transfusions, MiECC resulted in a statistically significant advantage over OpECC with regards to preservation of functional platelets.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it