MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1624037864 · doi:10.1016/s0972-6292(16)30799-9

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in a Patient with Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava Draining into the Coronary Sinus and Absent Innominate Vein: A Case Report and Review of Literature

2014· article· en· W1624037864 on OpenAlexaff
Girish M. Nair, Seeger Shen, Pablo B. Nery, Calum J. Redpath, David H. Birnie

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular anomalies and interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersistent left superior vena cavaCoronary sinusMedicineCardiac resynchronization therapyImplantCardiologyVeinRadiologyInternal medicineSuperior vena cavaSurgeryHeart failureEjection fraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) is a rare congenital anomaly of the superior venous system that may be discovered at the time of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We present a subject who needed cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-CIED implantation and was discovered to have PLSVC with absent innominate vein during the implant procedure. We were able to successfully implant a CRT-CIED using a right-sided approach via the right superior vena cava (SVC). We present a description of our implant technique and a brief review of the different aspects of CIED implantation in subjects with variants of PLSVC. CONCLUSION: Superior venous anomalies such as PLSVC can make CIED implantation technically challenging. However, with increasing operator experience, cardiac imaging and appropriate tools successful CIED implantation is possible in almost all cases.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Pacing and Electrophysiology JournalSame topicVascular anomalies and interventionsFrench-language works237,207