MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156196735 · doi:10.1177/08465371211001525

Computed Tomography Angiography Assessment of Acute Aortic Syndromes: Classification, Differentiating Imaging Features, and Imaging Interpretation Pitfalls

2021· review· en· W3156196735 on OpenAlexaff
Mana Modares, Kate Hanneman, Maral Ouzounian, Jennifer Chung, Elsie T. Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiologyAcute aortic syndromeAngiographyAortic dissectionComputed tomography angiographyComputed tomographyAortaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is an important life-threatening condition that requires early detection and management. Acute intramural hematoma (IMH), aortic dissection (AD) and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU) are included in AAS. ADs can be classified using the well-known Stanford or DeBakey classification systems. However, these classification systems omit description of arch dissections, anatomic variants, and morphologic features that impact outcome. The Society for Vascular Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (SVS-STS) have recently introduced a classification system that classifies ADs according to the location of the entry tear (primary intimomedial tear, PIT) and the proximal and distal extent of involvement, but does not include description of all morphologic features that may have diagnostic and prognostic significance. This review describes these classification systems for ADs and other AAS entities as well as their limitations. Typical computed tomography angiography (CTA) imaging appearance and differentiating features of ADs, limited intimal tears (LITs), IMHs, intramural blood pools (IBPs), ulcer-like projections (ULPs), and PAUs will be discussed. Furthermore, this review highlights common imaging interpretation pitfalls, what should be included in a comprehensive CTA report, and provides a brief overview of current management options.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Association of Radiologists JournalSame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207