MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106177401 · doi:10.4021//jmc.v2i4.242

Concomitant Traumatic Coronary Artery Dissection and Tricuspid Valve Injury: A Case Report

2011· article· en· W2106177401 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Firas Yazigi, Anuradha Kolluru

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRight coronary arteryConcomitantMyocardial infarctionDissection (medical)BluntCardiologyChest injuryBlunt traumaArteryTricuspid valveInternal medicineSurgeryCoronary angiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among the causes of death in all age groups, deaths due to trauma rank third after cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Until age 40, chest trauma constitutes 20-25% of the causes of deaths due to trauma .  Blunt cardiac trauma develops frequently following motor-vehicle accidents and its mortality rate is high. Of all types of cardiac injury that can result from blunt chest trauma, coronary artery dissection is the most infrequent one. The consequences of coronary artery dissections are variable, ranging from none or mild myocardial infarction to massive myocardial infarction or death. We report two unusual cardiac complications of blunt chest trauma: a traumatic dissection in both left anterior descending artery (LAD) and right coronary artery (RCA), concomitant with tricuspid insufficiency due to papillary muscle rupture. The management of the patient had to be tailored due to the complexity of the presentation. The final treatment plan resulted in uneventful clinical course and good overall medical results. doi:10.4021/jmc242w

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0100.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicTrauma Management and DiagnosisFrench-language works237,207