MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Disharmonious Patterns of Heterotaxy and Isomerism

2018· article· en· W2785829985 on OpenAlexaff
Deane Yim, Hazumu Nagata, Christopher Z. Lam, Lars Grosse‐Wortmann, Mike Seed, Edgar Jaeggi, Shi‐Joon Yoo

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Imaging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeterotaxyPolyspleniaAtrial AppendageMedicineAppendageMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicineCardiologyRadiologySitus inversusAnatomyHeart diseaseAtrial fibrillationSinus rhythm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is advocated that heterotaxy should be segregated into right or left isomerism according to atrial appendage morphology. However, atrial situs determination is often based on the pattern of associated findings rather than on atrial morphology itself, which can be difficult to define. The objective was to assess how often concordant patterns of isomerism classified by atrial appendage morphology, bronchopulmonary pattern, and splenic status are breached using cardiac magnetic resonance or computed tomography. The secondary objective was to determine the feasibility of defining atrial appendage morphology using cardiac magnetic resonance or computed tomography. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective review of 114 pediatric patients (median, 2.4 years; range, 1 day-17.9 years) with heterotaxy who underwent cardiac magnetic resonance or computed tomography was performed to evaluate atrial appendage, bronchopulmonary, and visceral organ arrangements. Atrial appendage and splenic anatomy were not definable in 17 of 114 (15%) and 4 of 114 (3.5%) patients, respectively. In the remaining 93 patients, 39% had classic right isomerism (bilateral right atrial appendages, right bronchopulmonary pattern, and asplenia) and 40% had classic left isomerism (bilateral left atrial appendages, left bronchopulmonary pattern, and polysplenia). Classic pattern of isomerism was breached in 20 of 93 (21.5%) patients: 13 (65%) displayed incongruent abdominal situs, 5 (25%) incongruent bronchial situs, 1 (5%) had discrepant appendage morphology, and 1 (5%) incongruent situs at all levels. CONCLUSIONS: Atrial appendage morphology is difficult to assess and not always indicative of bronchopulmonary or abdominal situs. Discordance between bronchopulmonary branching, atrial appendage arrangement, and splenic status was identified in >20% patients with heterotaxy. Independent description of each organ system is required when arrangements are disharmonious among different organ systems.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations79
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular ImagingSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207