MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747563523 · doi:10.14740/cr568w

Safety and Feasibility of Transcatheter Interruption of Ruptured Sinus of Valsalva Aneurysm Using the Cocoon Duct Occluder: Immediate Results and Mid-Term Follow-Up

2017· article· en· W2747563523 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Santosh Kumar Sinha, Narendra N. Khanna, Mahmadula Razi, Vinay Krishna, Mukesh Jitendra Jha, Vikas Mishra, Puneet Aggarwal, Amit Goel, Karandeep Singh, Ramesh Thakur, Lawrence Rajan, C. M. Varma

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Artery Anomalies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary sinusAneurysmSurgeryShunt (medical)VentricleInfective endocarditisCardiologyEndocarditisSinus (botany)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding safety and feasibility of transcatheter interruption of ruptured sinus of Valsalva aneurysm (RSOVA) using the Cocoon duct occluder (CDO) with immediate and mid-term follow-up result. METHODS: Transcatheter closure (TCC) was successfully done among eight patients, whereas five cases, not amenable to TCC, were referred for surgical correction among 13 consecutive patients of RSOVA at LPS Institute of Cardiology, Kanpur between January 2010 and March 2015. RESULTS: Their mean age was 26.1 ± 6.9 years. Sites of rupture were from right coronary sinus (RCS) to right atrium (RA) in one (12.5%), right ventricle in one (12.5%), and non-coronary sinus to RA in six patients (75%). The defects (9 - 17 mm) were closed by CDO (12/10 - 20/18 mm) with 100% procedural success. During follow-up (9 - 26 months), there was no residual shunt, progression of AR, infective endocarditis or device embolization. CONCLUSION: TCC of RSOVA appears to be a safe and feasible alternative to surgical therapy, with high technical success and excellent mid-term follow-up.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicCoronary Artery AnomaliesFrench-language works237,207