Il paziente con trombosi ventricolare sinistra dopo infarto miocardico acuto: tra evidenze disponibili, incertezze e prospettive future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of left ventricular thrombosis (LVT) after acute myocardial infarction has declined significantly in recent decades, thanks to advances in the field of revascularization and antithrombotic therapy. Despite oral anticoagulation, embolic events are the most feared complication of LVT. From a pathophysiological point of view, the development of LVT depends on Virchow's triad, that is, endothelial damage caused by myocardial infarction, blood stasis due to left ventricular dysfunction, and hyper-coagulability determined by inflammation. The diagnostic modalities of LVT include transthoracic echocardiography preferably implemented by contrast administration, and cardiac magnetic resonance. Most thrombi develop in the first 2 weeks after acute myocardial infarction, so the role of systematic screening with short to medium term repeated imaging appears limited. Vitamin K antagonists remain the cornerstone of therapy, since the effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants remains to be established. Only weak evidence supports the routine use of prophylactic anticoagulant therapy, even in high-risk patients.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".