MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508127649 · doi:10.2298/vsp160316213m

Extremely tortuous coronary arteries - when optical coherence tomography and fractional flow reserve did not help us much

2016· article· en· W2508127649 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vladimir Miloradović, Dušan Nikolić, Miodrag Srećković, Ivana Djokic-Nikolic

Bibliographic record

VenueVojnosanitetski pregled · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFractional flow reserveMedicineCardiologyTortuosityInternal medicineOptical coherence tomographyStenosisLumen (anatomy)AnginaCoronary arteriesRight coronary arteryCoronary artery diseaseLesionArteryRadiologyCoronary angiographySurgeryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Extreme coronary tortuosity may lead to flow alteration resulting in a reduction in coronary pressure distal to the tortuous segment, subsequently leading to ischemia. Therefore the detection of a true cause of ischemia, i.e. whether a fixed stenosis or tortuosity by itself is responsible for its creation, with non-invasive and invasive methods is a real challenge. Case report. We presented a case of a patient with a history of stable angina [Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS class II)], an abnormal stress test and coronary tortuosity without hemodynamically significant stenosis. Due to suspected linear lesion between the two bends in proximal segment of Right coronary artery (RCA) we performed optical coherence tomography (OCT), minimum lumen area (MLA)-13.19 mm2) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) RCA (0.94). We opted for conservative treatment for stable angina. Conclusion. When tortuosities are associated with atherosclerosis in coronary artery for determination of true cause of ischemia invasive methods can be used, such as OCT and FFR. <br><br><font color="red"><b> This article has been corrected. Link to the correction <u><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/VSP1912304E">10.2298/VSP1912304E</a><u></b></font>

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVojnosanitetski pregledSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207