Revisiting right anterior oblique projections for the triangle of Koch: implications from computed tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Variability in the anatomy and orientation of the triangle of Koch (TK) complicates ablation procedures involving the atrioventricular (AV) node. We used CT angiography (CTA) to assess the anatomical TK orientation, the CS ostium direction, and the relationship between the two, and we validated an individualized CS-guided projection during ablation procedures. Methods In 104 patients without structural heart disease undergoing computed tomography (CT) angiography, TK orientations were determined in relation to the coronary sinus ostium (CSo) as well as two standard right anterior oblique (RAO) projection angles (30 o and 45 o ) commonly used in ablation procedures. Results A CS-guided RAO projection (RAOCS) was shown to best track the orientation of the TK compared to RAO30° and 45°, with TK orientation strongly correlating with the CSo direction ( r = 0.86, P < 0.001). In addition, the mean relative difference between the angle of the CSo and TK orientation was 5.54 ± 0.48°, consistent with a reduction in the degree of image shortening compared to traditional RAOs. Moreover, in vivo validation following ablation revealed that using a CS-guided projection limited the degree of on-screen image shortening compared to both the RAO30° and 45° in 25 patients with catheter ablation procedures. Conclusion In hearts with a normal structure, the CSo direction offers a reliable predictor of the TK orientation which can be used to guide the projection of the TK during ablation procedures.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".