MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406214828 · doi:10.1097/hco.0000000000001197

Surgical and multimodal approaches to right-sided cardiac tumours

2025· review· en· W4406214828 on OpenAlexaff
Nitish K. Dhingra, Robert J. Cusimano

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac tumors and thrombi
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineModalitiesMultidisciplinary teamCardiac imagingRadiologyRadiation therapyBiopsyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiac tumours present significant clinical challenges due to their wide differential, complex anatomical and physiological implications, as well as the potential for widespread invasion in the case of malignancies. This review synthesizes recent findings surrounding the diagnosis and management of specifically right-sided cardiac tumours, with a particular focus on surgical resection and reconstructive techniques. RECENT FINDINGS: Management of cardiac tumours can be categorized into three key phases. First: early and accurate diagnosis is critical for improving outcomes, especially in malignancies. Advances in imaging modalities like MRI, CT, PET-CT, and biopsy techniques enhance diagnostic accuracy. Second: surgical resection is a cornerstone treatment for both benign and malignant right-sided cardiac tumours. Surgery is often curative for benign tumours, while for malignant tumours, R0 resection (complete microscopic removal) in appropriate candidates correlates with better survival. Third: managing cardiac malignancies necessitates a multidisciplinary approach, integrating additional therapies such as chemotherapy, radiation, and emerging immunotherapies tailored to patient and tumour characteristics. SUMMARY: Managing right-sided cardiac tumours demands interdisciplinary expertise. Standardized protocols are limited by the rarity of cases and insufficient high-quality data. International collaboration and sharing of experiences through prospective registries and clinical studies are essential to advancing knowledge and improving patient outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicCardiac tumors and thrombiFrench-language works237,207