A type A aortic dissection missed by non-cardiac gated contrast-enhanced computed tomography due to an aortic root dissection flap masquerading as an aortic valve apparatus: a case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Though computed tomographic angiography has very high sensitivity and specificity to diagnose acute aortic dissection, false-negative studies can occur and secondary tests may be required to make the diagnosis. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case of a 57-year-old Caucasian man with a typical presentation for acute type A aortic dissection in whom the initial non-cardiac gated computed tomographic angiogram was negative, leading to a delay in surgical management. Transesophageal echocardiography and post hoc 3D reconstruction of the original computed tomographic scan revealed a dissection flap confined to the aortic root, immediately superior to the sinuses of Valsalva and masquerading as part of the aortic valve apparatus. CONCLUSION: This case demonstrates that false-negative computed tomographic angiograms taken to rule out type A aortic dissection can occur and that secondary imaging tests, such as echocardiography, should be performed in cases in which the pre-test probability of aortic dissection is high. Cardiac gating of computed tomographic angiograms to exclude aortic dissection may enhance diagnostic accuracy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".