MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409112566 · doi:10.1016/j.jaccas.2025.103406

ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Following Left Internal Thoracic Artery-to-Coronary Bypass Secondary to Arterial Steal Phenomenon

2025· article· en· W4409112566 on OpenAlexafffund
Gage R Watson, Ian Billingsley, Keerit Tauh

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Case Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsInterior HealthUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineArteryMyocardial infarctionLeft coronary artery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the post-left internal thoracic artery (LITA)-to-coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) setting, anginal symptoms are associated with the presence of large, unligated LITA side branches. These symptoms are mediated by a variable arterial steal phenomenon. CASE SUMMARY: This report describes an atypical case of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) following LITA-CABG secondary to a variable arterial steal phenomenon induced by both a branch variant of the LITA and an intercostal artery. Angiography-guided embolization of the branch vessels successfully resolved the patient's ischemia. DISCUSSION: STEMI secondary to LITA branch-mediated steal has not been previously reported. This case demonstrates that large LITA side branches can lead to myocardial infarction and that embolization of the relevant side branches is an effective treatment strategy. TAKE-HOME MESSAGES: Providers should be aware that LITA side branches, if not ligated during surgery, may lead to threatening coronary ischemia. If such side branches cannot be ligated intraoperatively, then intravascular embolization is an effective treatment strategy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.281 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC Case ReportsSame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207