<b>The Chicken‐<scp>W</scp>ing Morphology:</b> An Anatomical Challenge for Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the particular assessment and closure strategy that was followed in patients with left atrial appendages (LAA) with an early and severe bend. BACKGROUND: The presence of a chicken-wing morphology with an early and severe bend constitutes one of the most difficult anatomical settings for transcatheter LAA occlusion. METHODS: Between November 2009 and December 2012, patients who presented chicken-wing LAA with an early (<20 mm from the ostium) and severe bend (<180°) were identified and included in the analysis. A particular implanting strategy consisting of deploying the distal lobe of the device inside the chicken-wing bend was used in all cases. RESULTS: Among 42 patients who underwent LAA occlusion during the study period, 5 (12%) presented the pre-specified anatomy. Following the mentioned implanting strategy, all patients underwent successful LAA occlusion using the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (n = 2) and the Amplatzer Amulet (n = 3). Successful occlusion was achieved in all patients. None of them presented any procedural complication. Follow-up transesophageal echocardiography at 3 months showed successful LAA sealing in all patients and no device embolization or thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: According to our results, the pre-specified closing implantation technique for chicken-wing LAAs with an early and severe bend might be a valid strategy for this challenging anatomical setting. Further cases will be necessary to confirm the results.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it