MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470478333 · doi:10.1097/mca.0000000000000412

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection

2016· review· en· W2470478333 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCoronary Artery Disease · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArtery dissectionCardiologyInternal medicineDissection (medical)Coronary angiographyRadiologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) remains an infrequent, elusive, and challenging clinical entity of unknown etiology eight decades after its initial description. Our understanding of the pathophysiology of SCAD, initially limited to information from early pathological studies, case reports, and very short series, has been enriched recently by relatively large contemporary series of patients studied prospectively. The typical presentation involves a young woman without coronary risk factors suffering an acute coronary syndrome but, actually, most patients are middle-aged and have coronary risk factors. A high number of conditions have been related to SCAD, but fibromuscular dysplasia has shown a major intriguing association with potential pathophysiological implications. SCAD may present (a) with an intimal tear and the classic angiographic 'flap' leading to the appearance of two lumens (true and false), or (b) without an intimal rupture, as an intramural hematoma. An increased clinical awareness together with new diagnostic tools have led to a major surge in the diagnosis of SCAD. High-resolution intracoronary techniques provide unique diagnostic insights into the underlying pathophysiology and facilitate identification of the disease in patients misdiagnosed previously. After the initial acute ischemic insult, most patients stabilize and have a benign clinical course and eventually experience spontaneous healing of the vessel wall during follow-up. However, recurrences may still occur in up to 10-20% of cases. Accordingly, a conservative medical management (watchful waiting strategy) has been recommended as the initial approach. Revascularization remains particularly challenging and may be associated with suboptimal results, acute complications, and poor long-term outcome. Nevertheless, in patients with ongoing or refractory ischemia and adequate anatomy, revascularization should be attempted. Some novel and attractive coronary interventions have been proposed in this uniquely challenging anatomic scenario. This review aims to present a comprehensive and contemporary update on this elusive and intriguing clinical entity.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.273 · 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