MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2462597525 · doi:10.1093/pch/5.5.267

Chickenpox: A parent's perspective

2000· article· en· W2462597525 sur OpenAlexaff
Michelle Head Kim

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineImmunology and Microbiology
ThématiquePoxvirus research and outbreaks
Établissements canadiensToronto Public Health
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésChickenpoxPerspective (graphical)MedicineVirologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceVirus

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

My son, Mackenzie Kim, was an extremely athletic, healthy, bright four-year old, when chickenpox threatened to take his life. He actually had a fairly mild case of the varicella virus. On day 4, however, he developed a fever. Our paediatrician said that this was unusual, so we paid her a visit. At first, she thought it might be influenza. That was the first time that I heard that children often get other illnesses once chickenpox arrives. That night my son had a very fitful sleep and cried out whenever he moved his leg. The second visit to our paediatrician resulted in her sending us to a hospital with a suspected infection. That night Mackenzie had his first operation on his left hip, and thus began our nightmare and our fight for his life. It is difficult to convey to others how traumatic an experience it is to know that you and the experts are so afraid that your child may not live. Mackenzie had contracted a streptococcus A (strep A) infection that had entered his bloodstream through the open chickenpox sores on his skin, and had travelled to his left hip and femur bone area. Our orthopaedic surgeon and his colleagues expected that Mackenzie would be fine after the first surgery and on his way home in a couple of days. But Mackenzie did not get better! His fever remained high, and he continued to experience significant pain in his left hip and leg area. His discomfort was aggravated by the fact that Mackenzie was extremely upset when the medical staff came near him. He received intravenous antibiotics, and had blood tests performed regularly and doctors visiting constantly. He was kept on morphine throughout the first three weeks of a four-week hospital stay. By day 7, Mackenzie was not better. It broke my heart to see him lying in his hospital bed, clearly in very great pain. The first few days he kept asking to go home; after a while, he just quit asking. He continued to have a high fever, and he was not eating anything. On day 7, the infectious disease specialists were called. They worked diligently with the orthopaedic team. Mackenzie's second surgery was on day 9 of his hospitalization. This time the infection had spread. The top of the femur bone and the growth plate in his left leg were being attacked by strep A. The strong antibiotics that he was receiving were not killing the infection. Mackenzie was rapidly going downhill. The high point of his day was when school friends would drop by for a visit. It meant so much to us that other parents gave of their time, tears and prayers for our little guy. Mackenzie went in for a third surgery five days later, and again the infection was back and growing stronger. A research specialist in strep A from another hospital was called in for his advice during the third surgery. He recommended that Mackenzie be given a blood transfusion product, gammaglobulin, which contains healthy antibodies that would fight the infection. All that night I sat with Mackenzie, dozing on and off and praying that the morning would bring us a good sign. The next morning, Mackenzie asked for his first bit of food, a sign that maybe we had turned a corner. One day later, the surgeons operated a fourth and last time, and this time the infection was gone. We had done it! Mackenzie's life had been saved. We will always be so very very grateful for the exceptional care that he received. Now our thoughts turned to healing him. Mackenzie could not walk. Four surgeries in the same area had left significant scar tissue, and at one point blood flow to the damaged area had been cut off. We clearly had a lot of work ahead of us. The toll that chickenpox took on our family was extensive. After 30 days at the hospital, we left with a weakened four-year-old boy who could not walk without the aid of a walker. Our two-year-old daughter Jessica was traumatized by the fact that her mother had disappeared for 30 days and thought the way to get attention was to pretend that you were sick. My husband had spent so much time at the hospital that his business suffered. I was physically and emotionally drained. However, I tried very hard not to give into the feelings, because there was still much to do. The doctors suggested that Mackenzie would always have a limp and that there was a very real concern as to whether the left leg would grow shorter than the right. They also suggested it would take us at least six months to get Mackenzie back to a more healthy state. I refused to accept that he might have a limp. I took Mackenzie to physiotherapy six times a week. As soon as he was able, I switched him into sports, so that it would not be so obvious that we were trying to heal him. He did six to seven physical activities per week. It took us two years to get Mackenzie strong, healthy and physically able. Now I have a six-year-old boy who plays hockey, soccer and tennis, swims, and skates; he is usually one of the better players on the various teams. It does my heart good to watch him. There is no sign of a limp, and the top of the femur bone has almost grown back. Both legs now appear to be the same length. We continue to monitor his well-being with regular orthopaedic check-ups. Chickenpox is not an innocent childhood illness. The varicella virus, because it suppresses a child's immune system, leaves the child extremely vulnerable to other life-threatening illnesses. Protect yourself and your children from this deadly virus.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,014
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,037

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,003
Communication savante0,0040,005
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0140,012
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,292
Écart entre enseignants0,277 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2000
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child HealthMême sujetPoxvirus research and outbreaksTravaux en français237 207