MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W91580235

Prevention of radial artery graft spasm: a survey of Canadian surgical centres.

2003· article· en· W91580235 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martin G. Myers, Stephen E. Fremes

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryArteryIntensive care unitRadial arteryCardiac surgeryVeinAnesthesiaInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The radial artery (RA) is used as an alternative conduit to the traditional saphenous vein bypass graft in some cardiac surgery centres. Despite limited clinical trial data, many centres appear to be using routine drug therapy to prevent spasm of the RA graft in the immediate and late postoperative period. OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of patients in Canadian cardiac surgery centres having RA bypass grafts and the percentage of patients routinely receiving drug therapy to prevent spasm of these grafts. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all cardiac surgery centres in Canada requesting data for the year 2000 on the total number of bypass surgery operations and the number of patients having RA bypass grafts. Information on approaches taken toward prophylaxis against spasm of RA grafts was also requested. RESULTS: The use of RA grafts ranged between 1% and 50%. Twenty-five of 27 centres used antispasm prophylaxis with calcium channel blockers with or without long acting nitrates both in the intensive care unit and on the surgical ward. Calcium channel blockers were prescribed routinely in all 25 centres with 12 centres also using long acting nitrates. Only two centres routinely continued nitrates on the ward. The duration of antispasm therapy varied from several weeks up to six months. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis against spasm of RA grafts is practised in over 95% of Canadian surgical centres despite limited clinical outcome data to support this practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations44
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207