MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1774958427 · doi:10.1002/ccd.24850

Endovascular stenting for treatment of a left internal mammary artery pseudoaneurysm following redo‐sternotomy: A case report

2013· article· en· W1774958427 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Cheung, Roger Philipp, Darren H. Freed

Bibliographic record

VenueCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePseudoaneurysmSurgeryMedian sternotomyStentArteryHemothoraxAngiographyAneurysmRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An 85-year-old gentlemen with a history of previous triple vessel coronary bypass grafting presented with severe aortic stenosis and occlusion of the previous saphenous vein grafts but with patent left internal mammary artery (LIMA)-left anterior descending. The patient underwent uncomplicated repeat sternotomy and aortic valve replacement with repeated coronary bypass. On post-operative day 21 the patient was successfully resuscitated from a pulseless electrical activity (PEA) arrest, and was found to have a 1-cm pseudoaneurysm of the left internal mammary artery at the level of sternomanubrial junction with associated hemothorax. The LIMA remained patent and a pinhole source of extravasation was discovered by angiography at the aneurysmal site. The defect was successfully repaired by endovascular implant of a 3.5 mm × 12 mm Graft Master covered stent (Abbott Vascular). The patient recovered well from the procedure without further complications and was discharged after a total of 48 days of hospital stay. Our experience confirms the feasibility of repairing post-operative pseudoaneurysm in the internal mammary artery by endovascular stent grafting, thereby avoiding the risks and complications of a repeat open chest procedure.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0080.003
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 head0.286
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatheterization and Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicVascular Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207