MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307090454 · doi:10.1007/s11845-022-03196-3

Anatomical variation in the branching pattern of the aortic arch: a literature review

2022· review· en· W4307090454 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anna Murray, Eiman Abdel Meguid

Bibliographic record

VenueIrish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsAortic archMedicineArchAnatomic VariationBranching (polymer chemistry)ConcomitantAortaAnatomySurgeryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many anatomical variations of the branching pattern of the aortic arch have been documented in the literature. These find their origin in alterations to the embryological development of the arch and have significant implications for surgical and radiological interventions. METHODS: Embase and Medline database searches were carried out in June 2021 and identified 1197 articles, of which 24 were considered eligible. RESULTS: Twenty-eight variations were found. The prevalence of the six main variations found is as follows: normal configuration (61.2-92.59%); bovine arch type 1 (4.95-31.2%); bovine arch type 2 (0.04-24%); origin of left vertebral artery (0.17-15.3%); aberrant right subclavian artery (0.08-3.33%); thyroid ima artery (0.08-2%). Concomitant variations present in conjunction with these variations are also documented, as were other variations which could not be classified into these six groups. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomical variations in the branching pattern of the aortic arch are present in over one-third of individuals in some populations. These are important pre- and intra-operatively during thoracic, neck and thyroid surgery. A greater effort should be employed to construct an official classification to facilitate greater understanding among clinicians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations31
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIrish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -)Same topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207