Abdominal aortic aneurysm: an illustrated narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present a descriptive review of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including a review of risk factors for and case finding in AAA for chiropractors as primary contact health care practitioners. DATA SOURCES: Clinical and scientific literature identified through various sources including MEDLINE and citation tracking. DATA SYNTHESIS: Selective narrative review of relevant literature. RESULTS: AAA may be asymptomatic; however, back pain is a common presenting feature. Risk factors include male gender, increasing age, cigarette smoking, hypertension, chronic obstructive airway disease, claudication, and AAA in a first-degree relative. AAA should be considered in the differential diagnosis of older white patients, especially males, with low back pain. Estimated prevalence for AAAs in older males is in the order of 3% to 5%; rupture accounts for 1.7% of deaths in men aged 65 to 75 years. Elective surgical resection of AAAs (prior to rupture) offers a low operative mortality and good prognosis. CONCLUSION: AAA should be considered in the differential diagnosis of older patients presenting with low back pain and those with risk factors for AAA. Chiropractors, as primary contact health care practitioners, have a responsibility to refer patients suspected of having AAA for appropriate imaging and, where indicated, vascular surgical opinion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".