MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548682029 · doi:10.1097/imi.0000000000000308

Pseudoaneurysm as a Late Complication of Hybrid Aortic Arch Repair

2016· article· en· W2548682029 on OpenAlexaff
Cristian Rosu, Nicolas Beaulieu, Raymond Cartier, Philippe Demers

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovations Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPseudoaneurysmMedicineStentAscending aortaAneurysmSurgeryAortic archAortaAortic aneurysmComplicationAnastomosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hybrid aortic arch repair is increasingly used for the management of aortic arch aneurysm. Pseudoaneurysm is a newly described late complication of this procedure. A 57-year-old man underwent emergent supra-aortic debranching and aortic arch stent grafting after rupture of an arch aneurysm. Three years later, the patient presented with a pseudoaneurysm at the junction between the stent graft's proximal landing zone and the origin of the debranching graft. At reoperative repair, the proximal stent graft had eroded through the aortic wall at the junction of the endograft proximal landing zone and the proximal anastomosis of the debranching graft. The presence of a dilated, fragile ascending aorta at the initial procedure seemed to be a risk factor for development of the pseudoaneurysm. Replacement of the ascending aorta combined with supra-aortic debranching has become an accepted strategy in hybrid arch repair to establish a suitable landing zone for the endograft.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovations Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular SurgerySame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207