MAIN COMPLICATIONS IN THE POST-OPERATORY OF HEART SURGERIES: SCOPING REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a scoping review, developed based on the guidelines proposed by the Guidance for the Conduct of Scoping Reviews, of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), in its 2017 manual (PETERS et al., 2017). OBJECTIVE: To identify and map the main complications in the postoperative period of cardiac surgery. FORMULATION OF THE RESEARCH QUESTION: P (Population) - Adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery. C (Concept) - Postoperative complications. C (Context) - Postoperative of cardiac surgery. What are the main complications that occur in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery? ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Texts available in full, in Portuguese, Spanish and English; Texts that address complications in the postoperative period of cardiac surgery in adults. MESH TERMS: P: Patient; Patients. C: Postoperative complications; postoperative complication; surgical complication. C: Thoracic surgery; cardiac surgery; heart surgery; cardiac surgical procedures; heart surgical procedures; Myocardial Revascularization; Surgery Heart Diseases; Previous Cardiac Surgery; Cardiovascular Surgical Procedures; cardiac bypass surgery; video-assisted thoracic surgery. DATA BASES: PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, CAPES Theses and Dissertations Portal, DART-Europe E-Theses Portal, Electronic Theses Online Service (EThOS), Scientific Open Access Repository of Portugal (RCAAP), Trove, National ETD Portal, Theses Canada.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.064 | 0.045 |
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".