MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1563720469 · doi:10.5195/ijms.2014.103

High Alert For Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome: A Case Report

2014· article· en· W1563720469 on OpenAlexaff
Madhur Rathi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medical Students · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiscontinuationNauseaVomitingCannabisBathingAbdominal painEmergency departmentPediatricsEtiologyPsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: A 32-year-old Caucasian man presented with intractable nausea, psychogenic vomiting, abdominal pain and compulsive hot-water bathing behaviors following the habitual use of cannabis for years, consistent with the uncommon and frequently overlooked diagnosis of Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome. This was his third admission to the emergency department with the same complaints and symptoms which had persisted for over two years without a recognizable etiology. All imaging studies done on each visit were unremarkable.n Results: The patient was clinically symptomatic with the aforementioned presenting complaints, but disappeared upon discontinuation of the cannabis. Within two days of supportive treatment in addition to temporary relief of symptoms with bathing. To date, noeffective cure has been sought for this unique diagnosis other than abstaining from cannabis use. Conclusion: A complete recovery was made three days following admission. The presenting symptoms were attributed to the smoking behaviors. The patient was followed up by his primary care physician once released from the hospital. A very rare diagnosis surfaced a number of times with the same patient in the same setting over the span of a couple years, but was overlooked due to its rarity. Hence, physicians should list it higher on their
 differentials when dealing with a patient with a history of drug abuse.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.358 · 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.

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Medical StudentsSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207