Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is an important cause of myocardial infarction (MI) in women with few or no conventional cardiovascular risk factors. Lack of awareness about this condition among healthcare providers had led to significant underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis in this relatively young patient population. RECENT FINDINGS: The current review summarizes the contemporary data on cause, management strategies and outcomes of SCAD. SUMMARY: SCAD is not as rare as previously thought, accounting for up to 4% of all acute coronary syndromes. It is frequently linked with predisposing factors, such as fibromuscular dysplasia or other vasculopathies, and is often triggered by physical or emotional stress. Due to more fragile vessel architecture, coronary angiography as the first-line diagnostic tool should be performed meticulously to avoid iatrogenic dissection. Intravascular imaging may be required if angiographic findings are uncertain. Unless patients have high-risk features such as ongoing ischemia, recurrent chest pains, left main artery dissection, ventricular arrhythmias, or hemodynamic instability, a conservative treatment strategy is favored over revascularization. Close monitoring is essential after a SCAD-event as recurrent cardiovascular events post-SCAD are frequent.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it