MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394852382 · doi:10.14740/cr1624

Prevalence of Aortic Root Pathologies in Platypnea-Orthodeoxia Syndrome Secondary to Intra-Cardiac Shunts

2024· article· en· W4394852382 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Omer Farooq, Usman Ghani, Harvey Friedman, Muhammad Sikander Akbar, Hammad Saudye, Sundus Alam, Muhammad Junaid Khan, Sumeet Mutti

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineAortic rootAorta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Atrial septal defects can allow right to left shunting of venous blood which presents clinically as platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome. It is believed that concomitant presence of aortic root pathologies increases the likelihood of shunting. Methods: The study included a review of 510 articles listed in PubMed of patients with platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome. Case reports of patients with extra-cardiac etiologies of platypnea-orthodeoxia were excluded. Results: We reviewed 191 case reports, and 98 cases (51.3%) had evidence of concomitant aortic root pathology. Furthermore, of the remaining 93 case reports, 69 ones excluded any mention of the nature of the aortic root altogether, further suggesting that this is an underreported number. Conclusions: There is a high prevalence of aortic root pathologies in patients with platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome secondary to intra-cardiac shunts. In patients with unexplained hypoxemia and incidental finding of aortic root pathology, it may be worthwhile to obtain postural oxygen saturation measurements to exclude intra-cardiac shunts as the potential cause.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicCardiovascular and Diving-Related ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207