MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409112843 · doi:10.1016/j.jaccas.2025.103376

Acute Iatrogenic Aortic Root Dissection With Pseudoaneurysm After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

2025· article· en· W4409112843 on OpenAlexaff
William Davalan, Quentin Chatelain, Stéphanie Tan, Raoul Bonan, Nicolas Dürrleman, Philippe Charbonneau, Walid Ben Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Case Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAortic rootPseudoaneurysmAortic dissectionMedicineCardiologyDissection (medical)Aortic valveInternal medicineRadiologyAneurysmAorta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Major complications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain rare but are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Aortic dissection typically results from procedural trauma to the aorta. CASE SUMMARY: We describe an iatrogenic aortic root dissection and contained aortic laceration during TAVI procedure with a 29-mm Evolut FX in an 88-year-old man with a history of coronary artery bypasses. Postprocedural computed tomography revealed a dissection in the noncoronary sinus of Valsalva with a mediastinal hematoma, evolving into a well defined pseudoaneurysm (20 mm). The patient received conservative management, resulting in a favorable clinical outcome. DISCUSSION: This case underscores the importance of preprocedural imaging, precise procedural execution, and close postprocedural monitoring. Although surgical repair is the standard for aortic dissection, conservative management may be an effective alternative in selected 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 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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC Case ReportsSame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207