Effect of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Administration During Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To determine if glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) can benefit patients receiving coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), GLP-1 RAs administration alongside standard insulin was compared with perioperative insulin alone. Materials & methods: All articles from Pubmed and Scopus databases that compared GLP-1 RA administration to insulin alone during CABG were included for meta-analysis. Short-term postoperative outcomes were analyzed between groups. Results: Average postoperative blood glucose levels significantly favored GLP-1 RA with a mean difference of -0.72 (p < 0.001). No other variables were significantly different between GLP-1 RA and insulin alone. Conclusion: GLP-1 RA is a safe option for perioperative care of CABG patients that can potentially improve postoperative outcomes of CABG patients by improving glycemic control and reducing hyperglycemic episodes.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.060 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".