MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126338720 · doi:10.1002/ccd.24978

Left main dissection conservatively managed with optical coherence tomography guidance

2013· article· en· W2126338720 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald K. Binder, Robert Boone, John G. Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDissection (medical)StentPercutaneous coronary interventionStenosisOptical coherence tomographyRadiologyAngiographyPercutaneousSurgeryLumen (anatomy)CardiologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Left main dissection (LMD) is a rare but feared complication of cardiac catheterization. It is usually managed by bailout stent implantation or coronary artery bypass surgery. We describe a case of iatrogenic, retrograde LMD during percutaneous coronary intervention. After covering the retrograde entry of the dissection in the ostial left anterior descending artery (LAD), optical coherence tomography (OCT) showed, that there was no antegrade entry in the left main and that the minimal true lumen area in the left main was 7.2 mm(2) . It was therefore decided to treat the LMD conservatively and reassess the results by angiography 6 months later. At follow-up angiography, no stenosis or residual dissection in the left main were noted. The patient was doing fine at 1-year follow-up. OCT is a valuable tool for assessing coronary artery dissections and may guide the decision, whether to stent or not to stent a dissection. In selected cases LMD may be managed conservatively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatheterization and Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207