High dose insulin therapy in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is a step forward in evaluating insulin therapy and defining its role in cardiac surgery first described as Glucose-Insulin-Potassium (GIK) solution 40 years ago. Chapter (I) includes a review of the literature on insulin therapy in cardiac surgery and illustrates the scientific bases and controversies in this therapy. Chapter (II) entitled: "Myocardial Protection During Elective Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Using High Dose Insulin Therapy" represents a manuscript that was presented in the following meetings: (A) Local meetings: (1) McGill cardiovascular research day, February 1/2007, Montreal, Canada. (2) Fraser Gurd annual research day, McGill surgery department, May 31/2007, Montreal, Canada. (B) National meetings: (1) 11th Annual Terrence Donnelly research day for Canadian cardiac surgery residents, May 26/2007, Toronto, Canada. (C) International meetings: (1) 43rd Annual meeting of the Society of thoracic surgeons (STS), January 30/2007, San Diego, United States. A full manuscript was submitted to "The Annals of Thoracic Surgery" for review. Chapter (III) entitled: "High Dose Insulin Therapy Attenuates Systemic Inflammatory Response in Patients Undergoing Elective Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting" represents a manuscript that was presented in the following meetings: (A) Local meetings: (1) Fraser Guard McGill Surgery department annual research day, May 3/2006, Montreal, Canada. (B) National meetings: (1) 10th Annual Terrence Donnelly research day for Canadian cardiac surgery residents, May 26/2007, Toronto, Canada. (2) Young investigator forum, Canadian Society of Clinical Investigators (CSCI), September 28/2006, Ottawa, Canada. (3) 59 th annual meeting of Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), October 21/2006, Vancouver, Canada. (C) International meetings: (1) American Heart Association (AHA), November 12/2006, Chicago, United states. Abstracts from this work were published in the following journals: (1) Clinical and Investigative Medicine, Vol. 29, No. 4, August 2006. (2) The Canadian Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 22 supp D, October 2006 (3) Circulation, Vol. 114 supp, No. 18, October 2006. A full manuscript was submitted to "the journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery" for review.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".