MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2261990344 · doi:10.1111/hdi.12389

Persistent left superior vena cava: Two case reports and a review from nephrologists’ perspective

2016· review· en· W2261990344 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tuncay Şahutoğlu, Tamer Şakacı, Ekrem Kara, Elbis Ahbap, Taner Baştürk, Yener Koç, Mustafa Sevinç, Cüneyt Akgöl, Arzu Ozdemir Kayarlar, Zuhal Atan Uçar, Feyza Bayraktar Çağlayan, Nuri Barış Hasbal, Perin Nazif, Mahmoud Isleem, Elif Sahutoglu, Abdülkadir Ünsal

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular anomalies and interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePersistent left superior vena cavaHemodialysisHemodialysis CatheterCatheterCentral venous catheterSuperior vena cavaRadiologySurgeryCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thoracic venous anomalies without congenital heart anomalies are present in minority of the population, but they are frequent enough to be encountered while placing hemodialysis catheters through the jugular or subclavian veins. Persistent left superior vena cava is the most commonly seen anomaly and it is rarely noticed before the observation of an unusual course of hemodialysis catheter or guidewire on chest X-ray. We present two patients with previously unspotted persistent left superior vena cava and uncomplicated hemodialysis catheter insertions through the internal jugular veins with good catheter functions. Review of the relevant literature from a nephrologists' perspective with technical aspects is provided.

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)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis InternationalSame topicVascular anomalies and interventionsFrench-language works237,207