Veno-venous bridges: the forerunners of the sinus venosus defect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Differentiation of the so-called sinus venosus defect from other defects permitting shunting between the atrial chambers remains problematic. The lesion is not a true septal defect, and current theories to explain the existence of the sinus venosus defect fall short. The presence of persistent systemic to pulmonary venous connections has been proposed to explain the existence of the sinus venosus defect. METHODS: Clinical histories and radiological findings of six patients are reviewed. Three patients have veno-venous bridges, two have partial anomalous pulmonary venous connections, and one patient has a sinus venosus defect. The clinical information is reviewed, along with current developmental and morphological considerations. DISCUSSION: We provide radiographic, developmental, and morphological evidence to support the theory that a so-called sinus venosus defect is the consequence of persistence of foetal systemic to pulmonary veno-venous bridges, rather than of deficiencies in atrial septation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".