Spontaneous coronary artery dissection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".