Conservative Management of Extensive Iatrogenic Aortic Dissection
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Iatrogenic aortic dissection (IAD) is a rare complication of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). There are no clear guidelines for IAD management, and limited data are available. Registry data and case series combined with extrapolations from our experience with spontaneous Type-A dissections suggest that very limited dissections are often managed conservatively with coronary stenting of the entry tear when possible, while more extensive dissections are managed surgically. We present a case report of a 50-year-old woman who underwent PCI for an ST-elevation myocardial infarction that resulted in an extensive IAD from the ostium of the right coronary artery to the aortic root, ascending aorta, and aortic arch. While the current evidence strongly supports surgical management of such extensive dissection, our patient was successfully managed conservatively with complete resolution according to short-term computed tomography imaging. This case suggests that conservative management may be a reasonable approach for select patients with extensive IAD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it