Coarctation of the aorta: evaluation and management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coarctation of the aorta is the discrete narrowing of the proximal descending aorta and is the sixth most common lesion in congenital heart disease. Repair of the coarctation can relieve the obstruction, but recurrent coarctation and future aneurysm formation can occur, and a heightened risk of vascular disease is present. This review focuses on advances in the management of native and previously treated coarctation and provides insights into future vascular risk. RECENT FINDINGS: Coarctation of the aorta is associated with other left heart obstructive lesions, and advances in the genetic basis of these conditions have been made. Recurrent coarctation and aneurysm formation are common after surgical and endovascular repair of coarctation of the aorta. Endovascular treatment is an acceptable alternative to surgical repair of native and recurrent coarctation. Covered stents and stent grafts can be used to treat arch complications with a low risk of complications. In spite of repair of the obstruction, hypertension persists and appears to be multifactorial due to a variety of factors, including endothelial dysfunction, aortic stiffness, altered arch morphology and increased ventricular stiffness. SUMMARY: People with previously repaired coarctation of the aorta require long-term surveillance for local complications with aortic imaging and surveillance and management of hypertension to prevent vascular disease.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".