MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158530041 · doi:10.1177/0267659110385512

Troubleshooting a missing intra-cardiac tumor at the time of bypass

2010· article· en· W2158530041 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Forcillo, Alexandre Lalonde, Louis‐Mathieu Stevens, Nicolas Noiseux

Bibliographic record

VenuePerfusion · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac tumors and thrombi
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiopulmonary bypassVentricular outflow tractCardiac TumorsSurgeryBypass graftingTroubleshootingArteryEmbolizationCardiac surgeryRadiologyCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Primary cardiac tumors are rare and the only curative treatment consists of complete excision under cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). This case report presents an unusual case of an intra-cardiac tumor which was missing at the time of surgical excision. METHOD AND RESULTS: The patient was scheduled to undergo surgical tumor removal and double coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Intraoperatively, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) demonstrated a mobile and pediculated tumor in the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). Unfortunately, at the time of tumor excision under CPB, this was missing. Before confirming tumor embolization, the CPB system was inspected. The tumor was found on the lateral part of the defoaming filter. CONCLUSION: Careful mobilization of the heart is recommended during surgery. In this case, it was unexpected that the tumor made its way through the vent line and unidirectional valve up to the venous reservoir where it was fortunately found.

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)0.003
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerfusionSame topicCardiac tumors and thrombiFrench-language works237,207