How Would You Correct an Aberrant Right Subclavian Artery?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 63-year-old female presented having suffered an embolic event to her right index finger. This resolved successfully with conservative treatment via development of collateral channels. The finger is fully viable, albeit mildly insensitive. She has had some dysphagia, with one specific choking episode when a lozenge became lodged in the esophagus, causing discomfort and cough until it dissolved spontaneously. Work-up revealed an aberrant right subclavian artery, with associated Kommerell’s dilatation and a 1 cm wide ulcerated area near its origin from the aorta, as well as an arteriosclerotic irregularity of the proximal subclavian artery. Passage of the aberrant subclavian artery behind the trachea and esophagus produced esophageal compression. See computed tomography (CT) scan images in Figure 1. The question regarding this case was: How would you correct this lesion? ● Open surgery ● Intraluminal endovascular treatment ● Combined surgical-endovascular approach (hybrid operation) with right subclavian artery transposition and thoracic aortic stent graft implantation ● Other approach
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 it