Incidental findings in CT imaging of coronary artery bypass grafts: results from a Canadian multicenter prospective cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence and clinical significance of incidental findings identified during computed tomography imaging of coronary artery bypass grafts. RESULTS: This prospective study includes 144 patients undergoing coronary graft patency assessment using computed tomography. Incidental findings were classified as significant if they were considered to need an immediate action or treatment, short-term work-up or follow-up, or minor. A total of 211 incidental findings were present in 109 (75.7%) patients. Seventy-one incidental findings (33.6%) were cardiac and 140 (66.4%) were extracardiac. Most common cardiac incidental findings were atrial dilatation [39 patients, 48 incidental findings (67.6%)] and aortic valve calcifications (7 patients, 9.9%). Among the 140 extracardiac incidental findings, the most common were lung nodules (51 patients, 54 nodules, 38.6%), and emphysema (21 patients, 15%). Thirty-six (25.7%) extracardiac incidental findings were significant and notably, 23 (63.9%) were lung nodules. Follow-up was recommended in 37 cases, among which all patients with significant lung nodules (23 patients, 62.2%). In conclusion, most common computed tomography incidental findings in patients with coronary grafts were lung nodules and emphysema.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".