Endovascular Revascularization in Secondary Raynaud's Phenomenon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endovascular intervention is not previously described in patients with exacerbated Raynaud ’ s phenomenon (RP). A 45-year-old male with secondary RP and CREST (Calcinosis cutis, Raynaud’s phenomenon, Esophageal dysmotility, Sclerodactyly and Telangiectasia) with a smoking history, who was noncompliant in the non-interventional treatment, presented with necrosis of the right hand in exacerbated RP. An intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (DSA) showed occlusion of the right distal ulnar and radial arteries. Initial pharmacological therapy showed no improvement. Thrombolysis with Urokinase therapy had a beneficial, but not optimal, effect on perfusion. This was probably due to an atherosclerotic component. An endovascular intervention, 2 mm balloon dilatation, in the right radial artery; improved this significantly. The clinical situation proved stable and no expansion of necrosis was seen. An endovascular procedure, not previously described in RP management, can be helpful in the treatment of exacerbated RP; especially when an atherosclerotic component is present. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/jmc478 w
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".