MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3013055785 · doi:10.1097/wno.0000000000000932

The Eyes Give Warning

2020· review· en· W3013055785 sur OpenAlexaff
Amadeo R. Rodriguez, Felix Tyndel

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Neuro-Ophthalmology · 2020
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueOphthalmology and Visual Health Research
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDenialNoticenobodyPsychoanalysisPsychologySkepticismMedicineAestheticsHistoryArtPhilosophyLawEpistemologyPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The patient's perspective can teach us so much. When the patient is a gifted artist, the lessons, even from the past, can be especially compelling. Frigyes Karinthy (1887–1938) was an already well-known Hungarian writer when, while sitting at a café in Budapest, he heard the “distinct rumbling noise” of a passing train. When it recurred several times and nobody else seemed to notice it, he realized he was having a hallucination. In retrospect, it was the first symptom of a brain tumor, and the profound human emotions of facing such a diagnosis are intimately described in his autobiographical book “A Journey Round My Skull” (1), in which he shares his uncertainty, fear, denial, and hope, which are not different from what patients still experience. Karinthy uses his characteristically clever and sardonic prose to describe his symptoms and interactions with the medical professionals of his time. As one would expect, the diagnosis and treatment of brain tumors nowadays differ significantly because of the tremendous advances in medicine, yet, as he takes us along on his journey, the diagnostic difficulties he faced were strikingly similar to what we continue to encounter. As his initial symptom was the sound of “the trains,” the first physician he consulted was “a well-known ear specialist” who thought his “duct was inflamed.” Shortly thereafter, a psychoanalyst explained his symptoms by “bringing the noises and headaches into organic associations with my character, desires, and disappointments…” Often regarded as a consequence of the hyperspecialization of modern medicine, fragmentation of care was already present at that time. Karinthy would later experience a disturbing episode: “[T]he mirror opposite me seemed to move. Not more than an inch or two, then it hung still.” He felt that “everything, myself included, seemed to have lost its grip on reality… I did not feel certain I was there myself, or the man sitting there was I.” He was extremely frightened by this experience. We can only imagine his disappointment when he then saw a new doctor who diagnosed nicotine poisoning “before I could describe half my symptoms.” “He did not even examine me,” he said, unfortunately a sentence we still hear too often. As we would expect, his symptoms continued despite giving up smoking. To “the trains” and the headaches, “fainting fits, retching, and attacks of giddiness” were soon added. Other people noticed changes as well; his son commented that he was veering to the left, and his wife complained of his distorted handwriting. Karinthy, who had briefly studied medicine and was married to a physician, suspected there was something really wrong with him and became fearful of “a brain tumor.” This idea was met with derision by his friends. Like in a story in which the detectives seem to dismiss any clue that points at the murderer right in front of them, doctors were more often interested in him as the famous writer he already was than as a patient and his complaints. When he confessed his fears to his wife, she thought he was acting “like a first-year medical student with professional hypochondria.” But things were about to change. When his vision started deteriorating, he consulted an ophthalmologist who provided the missing piece of the puzzle. “Choked disks, in the left eye one and a half, in the right two and a half diopters” read the report he was given to take to a hospital as soon as possible. We can readily relate to those patients we still encounter with headaches, among other symptoms, who consult several doctors until someone finally performs ophthalmoscopy and sends them to the emergency department with a note reading “papilledema.” It is as if patients must prove their complaints are genuine. The presence of this clinical sign was as powerfully confirming then as it remains today. Indeed, Karinthy dedicated an entire chapter of his book to his experience in the eye clinic, which he titled “The Eyes Give Warning.” Today, a scan would have shown the presence of a mass lesion, but at that time, the diagnosis was not as simple. He underwent numerous examinations in Budapest and subsequently went to the prestigious Wagner-Jauregg Clinic in Vienna, where his wife, a psychiatrist, worked at that time. There, he was extensively investigated under the supervision of Dr. Otto Pötzl. In the meantime, he tried to remain hopeful, although it was not always possible. He could not avoid thinking of one of his friends who had a terrible death due to a brain tumor. That was the first time he had heard of “the fundus of the eye being tested,” and he now underwent the same. Just as our patients consult the Internet, he went to the library in search of information. His symptoms continued and eventually his headaches became so intense that he even considered suicide. His vision got to a point where he “could not recognize faces unless they came close to mine.” He even had difficulty reading his own writing. His fundi worsened; “the papilla has again deteriorated by two and a half diopters, and there are signs of atrophy now,” said the ophthalmologist, who also informed him that if the tumor was not removed, he would go completely blind. Finally, Professor Pötzl rendered the verdict: “[A] cyst, now approaching a hen's egg size, is growing within a strictly circumscribed area on the right side of the brain and at the back of the cerebellum.” It was decided that he would go to Sweden to see the neurosurgeon Dr. Herbert Olivecrona, who had studied in the United States with Dr. Harvey Cushing. Karinthy and his wife embarked on the journey. He was admitted to Stockholm's Serafimer Hospital where investigations continued until in May 1936, he was finally taken to the operating room. Karinthy's description of his experience is richly detailed. He could feel how his head was shaved, and he subsequently heard “an infernal scream” as the electric trephine penetrated his skull. He was then transported to the X-ray room in Dr. Lysholm's department where he underwent pneumoencephalography: “[T]hey had drained the fluid from my brain cavities and had filled them with air.” From there, he was taken back to the operating room. Karinthy had watched an amateur film of one of Cushing's operations, and as he lay prone, strapped to the table, he recalled it to understand his own experience: the incision, trephination, removal of a part of his skull, and draining of the fluid. Although he did not experience pain, he found terrifying the apparently impossible idea of “lying with his head open and his brain exposed to the outer world, not merely alive but conscious and in his right mind.” The operation lasted several hours, and it took several days before he regained full consciousness. It was a success, and Karinthy was undoubtedly grateful to Olivecrona who, however, was afraid that he might not have been able to save his patient's sight. But not without pleasure, Karinthy realized that “the Professor” was wrong. To prove it, he picked Thomas Mann's story of Joseph, which he had been reading until his vision deteriorated and he could no longer continue, and read it out loud to his wife. Bishop (2) has pointed out the extraordinary parallel between the paragraph he read about the rescue of Joseph by wandering merchants from the well into which he was thrown by his brothers and the restoration of Karinthy's health by Olivecrona. The raising of Joseph and the raising of Karinthy! Yes, he was still alive and was also able to see. “It's a miracle!,” commented the ophthalmologist who examined him. From this remark, we can infer that his optic nerves must have been markedly pale. Three weeks after his surgery, he was able to stand up and walk, so he was allowed to leave the hospital to return to his beloved Hungary. Karinthy's book is remarkable in giving us a look back at the diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship of the time. It is also a poignant example of the fundamental role of the fundus examination (3). It was this finding that led to the suspicion of and ultimate diagnosis of Karinthy's tumor. Then, just as now, “the eyes give warning.”

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,804
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,297
Tête enseignante GPT0,556
Écart entre enseignants0,259 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Neuro-OphthalmologyMême sujetOphthalmology and Visual Health ResearchTravaux en français237 207