MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806116982 · doi:10.14740/cr717w

Unusual Presentation of Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection in an Older Male

2018· article· en· W2806116982 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rajveer Joea, Sarah Strube, Todd K. Zynda

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArtery dissectionCardiologyPresentation (obstetrics)Internal medicineArteryDissection (medical)Coronary angiographyMyocardial infarctionRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a variant of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) that is poorly understood. SCAD has been linked to fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD), connective tissue disease (CTD), pregnancy and hormonal imbalance, systemic inflammatory conditions (e.g. IBD, vasculitis), and coronary artery vasospasm rather than traditional cardiac risk factors. Symptomology generally accompanying SCAD is indistinguishable from ACS making the timely recognition and diagnosis vital for prompt treatment. Management of SCAD is not well defined given the absence of guidelines; conservative therapy with or without invasive intervention is assessed on a case-by-case basis. In this article, we report the case of a 62-year-old male, who presented with chest pain and dyspnea on exertion and was found to have an elevated troponin-I level and corresponding electrocardiogram (EKG) findings, subsequently diagnosed with a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Coronary angiography revealed a distal right coronary artery (RCA) dissection, which was confirmed later with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). The patient then underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) followed by stenting of the distal RCA and was discharged on optimal medical therapy. Herein, we report a case of SCAD in an otherwise healthy male with chest pain at rest and with mild exertion without conventional cardiac risk factors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicCardiovascular Issues in PregnancyFrench-language works237,207