Discussion Forum: spontaneous coronary artery dissection: patent foramen ovale—the ‘hidden door’ to the risk of stroke?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I read the article ‘Spontaneous coronary artery dissection: patent foramen ovale—the ‘hidden door’ to the risk of stroke?’ with interest. However, certain aspects of the case warrant closer examination. The patient presented with a neurological deficit, which was clearly a stroke, confirmed by brain magnetic resonance imaging. Transthoracic echocardiography and computed tomography revealed a mobile mass in the right atrium, later identified as an old clot on pathological examination. Coincidentally, the electrocardiogram showed Q waves in the inferior wall, while cardiac MRI demonstrated wall thinning and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction—confirming an old inferior wall infarction, as expected in the absence of chest pain at presentation. The authors described ‘contrast retention in the right coronary sinus, suggesting spontaneous entrapment.’ However, upon reviewing the angiogram, it is evident that this represents a catheter induced iatrogenic coronary dissection, with retrograde extension into the sinus of Valsalva/aortic root1 and occluded mid-right coronary artery. Furthermore, the authors hypothesized that spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) led to myocardial infarction, subsequent clot formation, and embolisation through a patent foramen ovale (PFO), ultimately causing the stroke. However, there is no evidence that the myocardial infarction resulted from SCAD. Instead, coronary angiography findings are consistent with iatrogenic coronary dissection, and it is more likely that the infarction was also as a result of PFO-mediated embolic event as described previously.2
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".