MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799928287 · doi:10.14740/cr630w

Anomalous Coronary Artery From the Opposite Sinus (ACAOS): Technical Challenges During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

2018· article· en· W2799928287 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Santosh Kumar Sinha, Mahmodula Razi, Anupam Mahrotra, Puneet Aggarwal, Anupam Singh, Lokendra Rekwal, Sunil Kumar Tripathi, Nishant Kumar Abhishekh, Vinay Krishna

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Artery Anomalies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionCardiologyRight coronary arteryCulpritInternal medicineCoronary sinusMyocardial infarctionStentArteryCoronary arteriesLeft coronary arteryCircumflexRadiologyCoronary angiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anomalies of the coronary arteries are reported in 1-2% of patients among diagnostic angiogram. Ectopic origin of right coronary artery (RCA) from opposite sinus is one of the most common and they are mainly benign, but at times may be malignant. We report a case of a 69-year-old male who underwent early invasive percutaneous coronary intervention for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) where RCA arising from left sinus at the root of left main artery was culprit and various technical challenges were encountered while intervening in form of cannulation to tracking of hardwares. RCA was cannulated with floating wire technique using hockey stick guide catheter and revascularized by deployment of 3.5 × 38 mm Promus Premier Everolimus eluting stent (Boston Scientific, USA). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first ever report of ectopic RCA being revascularized by using hockey stick catheter.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicCoronary Artery AnomaliesFrench-language works237,207