Anomalous origins of the coronary arteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to survey the contemporary literature surrounding congenital anomalies of origin of the coronary arteries and to identify remaining gaps in knowledge. RECENT FINDINGS: In recent years, lineage tracing analyses and mechanistic studies in model organisms have enhanced our understanding of the normal embryologic development of the coronary arteries, and how disruption of this intricate process can lead to congenital coronary anomalies. The true incidence of these anomalies remains unknown. Although a majority of cases are believed to be clinically silent, clinical presentation varies widely, from asymptomatic to sudden cardiac death. Cardiac computed tomography angiography and/or magnetic resonance angiography are the mainstay diagnostic modalities. Management of anomalous coronary arteries depends on the morphology and clinical presentation. Surgery is the gold-standard treatment for anomalous left coronary artery arising from the pulmonary artery and anomalous aortic origin of a coronary artery with intramural or interarterial course. SUMMARY: Several large multicenter initiatives are currently underway and should help address some of the numerous knowledge gaps surrounding the evaluation and management of anomalous coronary arteries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".