<b>The Chicken‐<scp>W</scp>ing Morphology:</b> An Anatomical Challenge for Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".