MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1578825051 · doi:10.1002/rcs.459

Minimally invasive robotically assisted repair of atrial perforation from a pacemaker lead

2012· article· en· W1578825051 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Hussain, Corey Adams, Alexis Mechulan, Peter Leong‐Sit, Bob Kiaii

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryPerforationAtrial fibrillationCardiac tamponadePericardial effusionAsymptomaticTamponadeChest radiographAtrium (architecture)Lead (geology)ConvalescenceCardiologyRadiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We present the first reported case of robotic-assisted right atrial perforation repair and pacemaker lead extraction. METHODS: A 75-year-old female with symptomatic sinus node dysfunction underwent atrial single chamber permanent pacemaker insertion via a persistent left superior vena cava approach. At one week follow-up a chest radiograph and a computerized dynamic tomography demonstrated that the right atrial lead had perforated the right atrial free wall. The patient remained asymptomatic without signs of pericardial tamponade, however urgent repair was warranted. RESULTS: Utilizing the da Vinci robotic system (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, California, USA), the pacer lead perforation was visualized, the lead retracted, and the right atrium repaired. The existing atrial lead was repositioned in the right atrial appendage. CONCLUSION: The patient's postoperative convalescence was uneventful, and she was discharged home on the third post-operative day. This case demonstrates the increasing clinical utilization of robotic-assisted technology in minimally invasive cardiac surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.296
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted SurgerySame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207