MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011419324 · doi:10.14740/jmc.v5i12.1991

Right Ventricle Foreign Body: A Case of a Migrating Iliac Stent Entrapped in the Tricuspid Valve

2014· article· en· W2011419324 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Majd Ibrahim, Auroa Badin, Sudhir Mungee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTricuspid valveVentricleStentSurgeryTricuspid insufficiencyThrombusAtrial fibrillationPercutaneousCardiologyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report a 27-year-old man with a history of atrial fibrillation, pericarditis, and May-Thurner syndrome who underwent a venoplasty with two self-expandable stents in the left common iliac vein. One year later, he presented with tricuspid valve insufficiency and a dilated right atrium. His echocardiogram showed a foreign body in the right ventricle enmeshed in the tricuspid valve. This was identified as a migrating iliac stent confirmed by the absence of one of the peripheral stents on venogram. He failed a percutaneous approach to retrieve the stent and underwent subsequent surgical extraction with open sternotomy. There was significant damage to the tricuspid valve necessitating valvuloplasty and annuloplasty. We believe the migrated stent may have been relatively small for this patient’s vascular anatomy and this serious complication could have been avoided by proper stent size selection. Fortunately, our patient is now asymptomatic with no functional limitations. J Med Cases. 2014;5(12):636-638 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jmc1991w

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)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.003
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicVascular Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207