MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136602906 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehp502

The answer lies in the bubbles: a patient with superior sinus venosus defect, persistent left superior vena cava, and absent innominate vein

2009· article· en· W2136602906 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Tobler, Matthias Greutmann, Erwin Oechslin

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular anomalies and interventions
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary sinusPersistent left superior vena cavaCardiologySinus venosusInternal medicineVeinSuperior vena cavaLeft atriumSurgeryAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 38-year-old woman with atypical chest pain and exertional dyspnoea was referred to our service for a diagnostic work-up. Transthoracic echocardiography showed an enlarged coronary sinus (CS) and enlarged right-sided heart chambers without obvious atrial septal defect (Panel A). After injection of agitated saline contrast into the left cubital vein, immediate appearance of bubble contrast was noted in the CS and the right atrium consistent with drainage of a persistent left superior vena cava into the CS (Panel B). This finding left the dilatation of the right-sided heart chamber unexplained. Additional injection of agitated saline into the right cubital vein was the critical diagnostic hint, when bubbles appeared simultaneously in both atria (Panel C). This finding is almost pathognomonic for a superior sinus venosus defect. The absence of bubble contrast in the left atrium after injection into the left cubital vein is consistent with the absence of an innominate vein, which was subsequently confirmed on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (Panel D). This case demonstrates the utility of agitated saline contrast for clarification of the cardiac anatomy, especially in the presence of an otherwise unexplained dilatation of the right-sided heart chambers. It also underlines, that in the odd case of rare anatomic variants, injection into both cubital veins may be necessary for a comprehensive and complete diagnostic work-up. Panel A. Apical four-chamber view, showing dilated right-sided heart chambers and a dilated CS (arrow). Panel B. After injection of agitated saline contrast into the left cubital vein, the CS (arrow) and right-sided heart chambers are opacified; there are no bubbles in the left heart chambers. Panel C. After injection of agitated saline contrast into the right cubital vein, simultaneous opacification of right and left heart chambers is obvious. Panel D. Three-dimensional reconstruction of a cardiac magnetic resonance angiogram showing a right superior and a persistent left superior vena cava (arrows). An innominate vein is absent.

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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0100.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicVascular anomalies and interventionsFrench-language works237,207