MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2207827162 · doi:10.14740/cr448e

A Case Report of Recurrent Subacute Stent Thrombosis After Drug Eluting Stent Implantation: What Is the Real Reason?

2015· article· en· W2207827162 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shiwei Yang, Yujie Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBeijing Nova ProgramBeijing Municipal Administration of HospitalsBeijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Clinical Medicine Development of Special Funding SupportNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionConventional PCIClopidogrelCardiologyStentDrug-eluting stentInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionDissection (medical)ThrombosisCardiac catheterizationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 63-year-old male was admitted with subacute anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Cardiac catheterization revealed a subtotal occlusion in the proximal and middle part of left anterior descending coronary artery. Subacute stent thrombosis (SAT) occurred recurrently until the last stent deployment solved the problem of the uncovered artery and distal-stent edge dissection. The patient's SYNTAX score was 19, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed. Unfortunately, SAT occurred recurrently after drug eluting stent implantation. What reason should be responsible for the recurrent SAT, clopidogrel hyporesponse or mechanical factors? All anti-platelet therapy has been tried, but adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-induced platelet aggregation remained hyporesponsive to clopidogrel. The patient has been symptom-free at follow-ups since the fourth PCI solved the problem of the uncovered artery and distal-stent edge dissection.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207