MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604526008 · doi:10.1148/rg.2017160124

Anomalous Coronary Arteries That Need Intervention: Review of Pre- and Postoperative Imaging Appearances

2017· review· en· W2604526008 on OpenAlexaff
Prachi Agarwal, Carole Dennie, Elena Peña, Elsie T. Nguyen, Troy LaBounty, Bo Yang, Smita Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiographics · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Artery Anomalies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersChinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
KeywordsMedicineArteryRadiologyCoronary arteriesMagnetic resonance imagingCoronary sinusFistulaCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coronary artery anomalies constitute a diverse group of abnormalities, ranging from anatomic variants to those having hemodynamic consequences. This review focuses on major anomalies that have clinical implications requiring treatment, including anomalous origin of the coronary artery from the opposite sinus with interarterial course specifically with an intramural course, coronary artery origin from the pulmonary artery, and coronary artery fistula. Comprehensive imaging evaluation is necessary to precisely delineate the anatomy as well as pathophysiologic aspects of the anomaly before determining treatment options for a specific patient. Coronary computed tomographic angiography provides elegant depiction of coronary arterial anatomy and the relationship of the vessel to the adjacent structures, with the ability to perform three-dimensional reconstructions. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is emerging as an alternative noninvasive imaging strategy, particularly in young individuals, due to the lack of ionizing radiation and avoidance of iodinated contrast agents. This review describes the roles and recent technical advancements in computed tomography and MR imaging pertinent to coronary artery imaging. Additionally, this article will familiarize readers with the cross-sectional imaging appearance of clinically relevant coronary anomalies, hemodynamic considerations, and complex decision making. The different management strategies used for these anomalies, such as coronary unroofing, reimplantation, bypass grafting, Takeuchi repair, and surgical and interventional closure of fistulas, as well as specific posttreatment complications, are also discussed. ©RSNA, 2017

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations101
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiographicsSame topicCoronary Artery AnomaliesFrench-language works237,207