MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153635894 · doi:10.1177/1538574410363620

Spontaneous Aortic Arch Thrombus Presenting as Acute Critical Limb Ischemia

2010· article· en· W2153635894 on OpenAlexaff
Corey Adams, Ashutosh Nagpal, Thomas L. Forbes, Debbie A. Lawlor, Michael Chu

Bibliographic record

VenueVascular and Endovascular Surgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Thrombus and Embolism
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCritical limb ischemiaThrombusLimb ischemiaAortic archCardiologyIschemiaInternal medicineAortaSurgeryVascular diseaseArterial disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report a case of a 52-year-old male who presented with acute leg ischemia and underwent successful femoral embolectomy and fasciotomies. Investigations revealed a pedunculated mass in the aortic arch, floating under the innominate and left common carotid arteries. Urgent resection was performed through a longitudinal aortotomy with deep hypothermic circulatory arrest and axillary artery perfusion to reveal a 2.5 x 1.5 cm pedunculated mass attached to the posterior aspect of the arch that was resected. Histology revealed thrombus material prompting lifelong systemic anticoagulation. On 3 months follow-up, the patient had returned to normal activities and computed tomography confirmed complete resection without recurrence. This case study demonstrates that spontaneous thrombus formation is possible in high-flow vascular regions such as the aortic arch and also confirms the importance of evaluating central sources of thromboemboli in patients presenting with acute limb ischemia. Urgent surgical removal is recommended and can be performed safely.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVascular and Endovascular SurgerySame topicAortic Thrombus and EmbolismFrench-language works237,207