Congenital Thrombophilia and Intracardiac Thrombosis: Probably an Underdiagnosed Event
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the number of patients with congenital thrombophilia who presented an intracardiac thrombosis. METHODS: Personal files were reevaluated together with a time-unlimited search of the literature. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients with intracardiac thrombosis and congenital thrombophilia have been gathered from the literature including the two personal cases. The distribution observed in thrombophilia patients is similar for left side or right side heart (9 vs 11 cases). The left ventricle and the right ventricle were involved in six or five instances, respectively. In one case, both ventricles were involved. On the contrary, the left atrium was involved in three cases whereas the right atrium was affected in six cases. In the remaining cases, more than one heart chamber was involved. CONCLUSIONS: In "normal" subjects, left side thromboses are predominant once catheter-associated thrombi are excluded. The reason of this discrepancy lies in the greater prothrombotic effect exercised by congenital thrombophilia on venous thrombosis compared to arterial thrombosis. The relative high prevalence of cardiac thrombosis seen in patients with antithrombin and protein C deficiencies indicated that a cardiac evaluation should be carried out in all patients with these two defects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".