MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403284920 · doi:10.14740/cr1702

The Impact of Remote Ischemic Preconditioning on Inflammation Markers in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

2024· article· en· W4403284920 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cezar Dumitrel Luca, Alexandra Maria Boieriu, Carmen Daniela Neculoiu, Diana Ţînţ

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitatea Transilvania din Brasov
KeywordsMedicineBypass graftingCardiologyInternal medicineArteryIschemic preconditioningGraftingIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This study aimed to investigate if remote ischemic preconditioning reduces the inflammatory process on patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: We conducted a case-control study involving 80 patients, half of whom underwent ischemic preconditioning for severe coronary artery disease (CAD) and subsequently underwent CABG. We assessed interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6 levels using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method, high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI) using chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA), and C-reactive protein (CRP) using the turbidimetric method at three key time points: before surgery (visit 1 or V1), immediately postoperatively (visit 2 or V2), and 1 week postoperatively (visit 3 or V3) in all subjects. Results: Ischemic preconditioned patients showed a significant decrease in proinflammatory markers (IL-1, IL-6) but not in CRP or hsTnI. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that remote ischemic preconditioning significantly reduced the levels of specific proinflammatory markers (IL-1 and IL-6), which may suggest general systemic protection. However, it did not demonstrate cardioprotection per se , as evidenced by the absence of a statistically significant decrease in hsTnI level. Cardiol Res. 2024;15(5):369-376 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cr1702

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207