Total Arterial Revascularization: Evaluating the Length of the Radial Artery in a Composite Graft Configuration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Reimplanting the radial artery in the left internal thoracic artery as a composite graft allows total arterial revascularization (TAR) without aortic manipulation. The limitation of this strategy is the length of the radial artery required to reach distal right coronary artery (RCA) branches. Our analysis focuses on the feasibility of this strategy. METHODS: A total of 169 patients underwent TAR using the radial artery in a composite grafting configuration. Length of the radial artery, number of sequential anastomoses, heart size, target location, length of the arm, patient height, body surface area, and flow in the composite graft were prospectively collected. RESULTS: The mean length of the radial artery was 18.02 cm. Patients with a mean length of the radial artery of 15.9 cm needed an extension of the radial artery with another conduit to reach the RCA distal branches. When T-configuration is used, the length of the radial artery should be 0.53 cm per sequential anastomosis to reach the RCA distal branches. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that an average length of 18.02 cm of radial artery is needed to reach targets on the RCA distal branches in composite grafting. In T-configuration, we need 0.53 cm more length per anastomosis to achieve TAR.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".