The Great Pioneers of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Is it Necessary to Ascertain Anybody the Fatherhood of CABG?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronary bypass operation is one of the greatest achievements of medical science in the 20th century. Alexis Carrel in 1910 and Arthur Vineberg in 1945 tried to perform surgical revascularization of the diseased coronary arteries. In the beginning of the 1950s many surgeons attempted experimentally to anastomose internal thoracic artery to the coronary arteries. Success was achieved simultaneously and independently by Vladimir Demikhov in Russia and Gordon Murray in Canada. Then the real success come of mammary-coronary bypass with tantalum ring by Robert H Goetz and with suture technique by Vasilii I Kolesov. Then autogenous great saphenous vein used by Rene G Favaloro and others and made the procedure popular worldwide. Which contribution is greater, when medicine depends on evolution and big accomplishment reached by means of the contribution of many. There comes the interesting question who should be given the credit of introducing this major surgical procedure, and along comes the ethical issue whether any single individual should be ascertained the fatherhood of CABG or any historic event at all! Cardiovasc j 2023; 15(2): 185-188
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".