MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166349149 · doi:10.1148/rg.23si035509

Evaluation of a Large Atrial Septal Occluder with Cardiac MR Imaging

2003· article· en· W2166349149 on OpenAlexaff
Chantale Lapierre, Marie‐Josée Raboisson, Joaquim Miró, Nagib Dahdah, R Guérin

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiographics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary sinusInferior vena cavaCardiac magnetic resonance imagingMagnetic resonance imagingCardiologyInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging was used to evaluate the position of a large atrial septal occluder (ASO) with regard to adjacent cardiac valves and veins and to assess any negative effects of the ASO on these vital structures. A total of 26 pediatric patients (mean age, 4.5 years; mean interval after implantation, 18.8 months) were evaluated with cardiac MR imaging. The position of the ASO was best depicted with two-dimensional cine fast low-angle shot imaging. The authors observed impingement of the ASO on the right superior pulmonary vein in 14 patients, on the right inferior pulmonary vein in three patients, on the right superior vena cava in 13 patients, and on the right inferior vena cava in nine patients. In two patients, protrusion of the ASO into the right inferior vena cava was associated with coronary sinus prominence. The ASO was in contact with the mitral valve in 10 patients. Deformation of the aortic valve and root was evident at the onset of the R wave in 19 patients and persisted throughout the cardiac cycle in five of these patients. Cardiac MR imaging reliably depicted the position of the ASO with regard to vital structures. Despite the protrusion of the ASO, no significant effects on venous structures or cardiac valves were observed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiographicsSame topicCardiovascular and Diving-Related ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207