Challenges in diagnosis and management of coarctation of the aorta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coarctation of the aorta remains a controversial topic with uncertainties in long-term outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent advances in fetal imaging including echocardiography and MRI offer novel opportunities for better detection and prediction of the need for neonatal intervention.New imaging techniques are providing novel insights about the impact of arch geometry and size on flow dynamics and pressure gradients. The importance of arch size rather than shape for optimal hemodynamics has been identified. Long-term outcome data suggest a significant increase in mortality risk in coarctation patients beyond the third decade when compared with the general population. Hypertension is highly prevalent not only in adult patients following repair of coarctation but also in normotensive patients presenting with LV diastolic dysfunction and adverse remodelling, indicating that abnormal vascular properties are important. Patients with coarctation undergoing neonatal repair are at risk for adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes and patients could benefit from timely neurocognitive evaluation and intervention. SUMMARY: Optimizing aortic arch size, prevention and aggressive treatment of hypertension and vascular stiffening are important to improve long-term outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".