Biventricular non-compaction and giant left atrial appendage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A young man with unexplained symptoms of breathlessness presented for cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) following a non-contrast echocardiogram that had suggested mild impairment of function. As he was being placed on the MRI table, the technologist spontaneously commented upon his unusual facial features with the words ‘he's a funny looking kid’. Cardiac MRI revealed dramatic evidence of non-compaction cardiomyopathy affecting both ventricles. The diagnostic appearance of excessive and long trabeculations with deep intratrabecular recesses is shown in axial (Panel A) and short axis (Panel B) steady state free precession (SSFP) images together with a 4 chamber ‘delayed enhancement’ image post-gadolinium (Panel C). A thin outer layer of normally compacted myocardium was also apparent. From the MRI examination, it was clear that the pathological process was affecting both ventricles. The other striking abnormality in the MRI was the unusual size and prominence of the left atrial appendage (Panel D). Non-compaction affecting both ventricles is only rarely described. It is likely that there exists a direct genetic linkage between the patient's dysmorphic appearance and his cardiac phenotype. Non-compaction certainly occurs in association with a range of congenital disorders. Giant left atrial appendage has not been previously described in association with this condition. It may be important given the prevalence of systemic embolism, which can be a presenting feature of left ventricular non-compaction. Panel A. Axial SSFP image. Panel B. Short-axis SSFP image. Panel C. Four-chamber delayed enhancement image without evidence of myocardial fibrosis. Panel D. Giant left atrial appendage on axial SSFP image. Supplementary video clips demonstrating left and right ventricular contraction in axial and short axis oblique imaging planes are available at European Heart Journal online.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".