MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2400028549

[Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting and left ventricular aneurysm resection--a case report].

2005· article· en· W2400028549 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Piotr Hendzel, Leszek Gryszko, Wojciech Szczawiński, Artur Rymsza, Agnieszka Gajewska

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAneurysmCardiologyAnastomosisInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionArteryRight coronary arteryLeft Ventricular AneurysmOff-pump coronary artery bypassOcclusionSurgeryLeft coronary arteryBypass graftingCoronary angiography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the case of a 55-year-old patient with coronary heart disease of class III of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), after cardiac antero-lateral wall infarction at unknown time. Coronarography revealed 90% occlusion of three branches of left coronary artery. Ventriculography showed dyskinetic aneurysm of apex and anterior wall without presence of thrombus. On the basis of the performed examination the patient was qualified to off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) and left ventricular aneurysm resection (LVAn). On the beating heart with the use of Octopus II stabilizer distal (side to side) anastomosis was performed to marginal branch and (end to side) to circumflex as a jump graft. Subsequently left internal thoracic artery to left anterior descending branch anastomosis was performed. And then, on the beating heart on the two Teflon pads entry of aneurysm was closed by the mattress sutures. Next the aneurysm was resected and closed with additional continuous suture. There were non operative and post-operative complications.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCardiac Structural Anomalies and RepairFrench-language works237,207