Spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection: an investigative case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection (SISMAD) is a rare cause of acute abdominal pain, but could potentially be fatal to patients, and should be recognized soon in the emergency department after excluding other common causes. Computed tomography (CT) is the modality of choice for initial diagnosis and follow-up. Currently there is no evidence-based guidelines for managing SISMAD. A 58-year-old man being suspected of a mesenteric artery dissection was referred to our emergergy department. The patient was monitored, treated conservatively with anticoagulant and discharged after 3 days. Follow-up CT scans at 6 month, 1 year and 1 year and a half post discharge showed a partially occluded false lumen, the diameter of true lumen had increased in size and no signs of bowel ischemia. SISMAD should be considered as part of differential diagnoses when patients in their fifth to seventh decades of life present with acute abdominal pain. Treatment includes conservative management, percutaneous endovascular interventions, or surgery, but most patients can be managed conservatively.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".