MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2253830473 · doi:10.4172/2368-0512.1000039

Tricuspid aortic stenosis with systolic dysfunction in a 14-year-old boy: Critical stenosis, noncompaction or secondary fibroelastosis?

2015· article· en· W2253830473 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Santosh Kumar Sinha, Vinay Krishna

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent research. Cardiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiologyTricuspid stenosisInternal medicineEndocardial fibroelastosisMedicineStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bicuspid aortic valve is the most common cause of isolated valvular aortic stenosis in the pediatric age group; another cause is annular hypoplasia, with the tricuspid valve being the least commonly involved.In aortic stenosis, causes of systolic dysfunction are critical stenosis, secondary fibroelastosis and noncompaction.Critical stenosis is diagnosed in the usual fashion.Secondary fibroelastosis is characterized by endocardial thickening, systolic dysfunction and distinctive bright echoes originating from the endocardium.Noncompaction is a congenital cardiomyopathy due to embryonic arrest of the normal development of the myocardium, leading to persistence of fetal myocardium in postnatal life.Although described in infants with aortic stenosis or atresia, the presence of noncompaction beyond infancy associated with aortic valve disease is exceedingly rare.The echocardiographic appearance of the ventricular myocardium in noncompaction is the distinctive presence of deep intramyocardial recesses.A case of left ventricular noncompaction in association with a tricuspid aortic valve with severe aortic stenosis with systolic dysfunction in a 14-year-old boy is reported.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.004
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent research. CardiologySame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207