Prevalence and clinical significance of solitary pulmonary sub-segmental microembolism.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Solitary pulmonary microembolism is rarely discussed as a distinct diagnostic entity. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the prevalence and clinical significance of embolism limited to subsegmental branches in a group of patients discharged from hospital on anticoagulants with a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism based on ventilation-perfusion imaging followed by selective angiography. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Of 29 consecutive patients with classic signs of pulmonary embolism at angiography, we identified a subgroup of 5 patients with sub-segmental embolism, which was solitary in all cases. RESULTS: Clinical presentation included chest pain (2/5), shortness of breath (2/5, or hypoxemia (1/5). Chest X-rays were normal (2/5), or showed pulmonary oedema (1/5) or atelectasis with (1/5), or without (1/5) pleural effusion. VQ imaging patterns included small subsegmental mismatch (1/5), one segment mismatch (1/5), single (1/5) or triple (2/5) match. The site and size of the microemboli found at angiography were incompatible with the location and severity of symptoms in 4/5 (80%) patients, and with location and extent of Chest X-ray findings and with VQ patterns in all patients. VQ abnormalities were either either disproportionably larger or were non congruent with the vascular territory compromised by the subsegmental embolus. CONCLUSIONS: Sub-segmental pulmonary micro-emboli were always solitary, and not uncommon, comprising 17% of all patients with pulmonary embolism. The location and size of the emboli were inconsistent with clinical, Chest X-ray and scintigraphic findings, suggesting that isolated microemboli are a serendipitous finding, of no clinical significance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".