Quadricuspid Aortic Valve: An Introduction for Clinicians
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
Quadricuspid aortic valve (QAV) is a congenital heart anomaly in which the aortic valve has four cusps of various size possibilities, as opposed to the three symmetrical cusps generally observed. This cardiac valvular abnormality is rarely identified, with an estimated incidence rate of 0.013% to 0.043%, although recent technological advancements in diagnostics have contributed to an increase in detection. Historically, it had been typically encountered during open heart surgery or postmortem; however, it is presently diagnosed primarily via ultrasound echocardiography, and could go undetected unless specifically considered. It was first reported by Babington in 1847, and since then approximately 300 cases have been published. This condition is sporadically associated with additional congenital cardiovascular defects, with coronary artery irregularities being the most common. In more than half of published QAV incidences it has led to the progressive development of aortic regurgitation (AR) usually sans aortic stenosis, particularly amongst elderly patients, often requiring surgical intervention after 50 years of age. A fifth of total instances, but two-thirds of instances with AR, warrant surgery seldom amidst complications, with reconstructive tricuspidization preferred over valve replacement. Cardiol Res. 2022;13(1):2-10 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cr1308
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it