MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807263463 · doi:10.14740/cr714w

Left Main Coronary Artery Diverticulum: Case Report and Review of the Literature

2018· article· en· W2807263463 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hassan Tahir, Timothy J. Kennedy, Muhammad Uzair Awan, Bassam Omar, Christopher Malozzi, G. Mustafa Awan

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKawasaki Disease and Coronary Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiverticulum (mollusc)CardiologyInternal medicineCoronary artery aneurysmArteryAneurysmCoronary artery diseaseRadiologyLeft coronary arteryCoronary angiogramCoronary angiographyMyocardial infarctionKawasaki disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coronary artery disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and while most commonly is atherosclerotic, it can present with variable manifestations, both congenital and acquired. One such manifestation is coronary aneurysm, which is a localized dilatation of a coronary artery wall segment to greater than 1.5 times the adjacent normal segments. While a dilated outpouching of a coronary artery has been commonly classified as a coronary aneurysm, a non-dilated outpouching is rare and is referred to as a diverticulum, with only one previous case report in the literature. It is conceivable that other cases of coronary artery diverticulum may have been previously reported as an aneurysm, given the overlapping angiographic appearance. We present a case of a 72-year-old female patient with an incidental finding of left main coronary artery diverticulum on diagnostic coronary angiogram done for preoperative liver transplantation evaluation.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicKawasaki Disease and Coronary ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207