Coronary bypass surgery guided by computed tomography in a low-risk population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In patients with three-vessel disease and/or left main disease, selecting revascularization strategy based on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has a high level of virtual agreement with treatment decisions based on invasive coronary angiography (ICA). METHODS: In this study, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedures were planned based on CCTA without knowledge of ICA. The CABG strategy was recommended by a central core laboratory assessing the anatomy and functionality of the coronary circulation. The primary feasibility endpoint was the percentage of operations performed without access to the ICA. The primary safety endpoint was graft patency on 30-day follow-up CCTA. Secondary endpoints included topographical adequacy of grafting, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular (MACCE), and major bleeding events at 30 days. The study was considered positive if the lower boundary of confidence intervals (CI) for feasibility was ≥75% (NCT04142021). RESULTS: The study enrolled 114 patients with a mean (standard deviation) anatomical SYNTAX score and Society of Thoracic Surgery score of 43.6 (15.3) and 0.81 (0.63), respectively. Unblinding ICA was required in one case yielding a feasibility of 99.1% (95% CI 95.2%-100%). The concordance and agreement in revascularization planning between the ICA- and CCTA-Heart Teams was 82.9% with a moderate kappa of 0.58 (95% CI 0.50-0.66) and between the CCTA-Heart Team and actual treatment was 83.7% with a substantial kappa of 0.61 (95% CI 0.53-0.68). The 30-day follow-up CCTA in 102 patients (91.9%) showed an anastomosis patency rate of 92.6%, whilst MACCE was 7.2% and major bleeding 2.7%. CONCLUSIONS: CABG guided by CCTA is feasible and has an acceptable safety profile in a selected population of complex coronary artery disease.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".