MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969764242 · doi:10.1055/s-0039-1692712

Rupture of a Type B Aortic Dissection in a Postpartum Patient with Marfan Syndrome

2019· article· en· W2969764242 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Elizabeth Patberg, Jennifer Duffy, Afshan B. Hameed

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, IrvineCanadian Cardiovascular Society
KeywordsMedicineMarfan syndromeAortic dissectionDissection (medical)Ascending aortaSurgeryPostpartum periodAortaPregnancyObstetricsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Pregnant women with Marfan syndrome (MFS) are known to be at increased risk of aortic dissection; however, cases of aortic rupture are extremely rare. There is lack of consensus on the exact site and size of aortic diameter measurement that increases this risk, and whether this applies to both Type A and Type B dissections. Case A 23-year-old G2P1001 with known Marfan syndrome who underwent an uncomplicated antepartum and intrapartum course. She experienced persistent backache 10 days postpartum that led to the diagnosis of Stanford Type B dissection. The patient was hospitalized for close observation. Dissection progressed to aortic rupture within 24 hours that required emergent thoracic endovascular aortic repair. She had an uncomplicated postoperative course. Conclusion Our report demonstrates rupture of a known aortic dissection within a very short time in the postpartum period. The case highlights the importance of patient education and close surveillance especially in the postpartum period. It also brings home the value of imaging of the whole aorta rather than focusing on the ascending alone. Multidisciplinary care and timely diagnosis and intervention likely led to the favorable outcome in our case.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Perinatology ReportsSame topicCardiovascular Issues in PregnancyFrench-language works237,207