MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1830060537

Spontaneous conus medullaris infarction in a 79 year-old female with cardiovascular risk factors: a case report.

2012· article· en· W1830060537 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica J. Wong, John Dufton, Silvano Mior

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConus medullarisMedicinePresentation (obstetrics)InfarctionCase presentationChiropracticPediatricsSurgeryMyocardial infarctionPathologySpinal cordInternal medicineAlternative medicinePsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To detail the case of a 79 year-old female who presented with sudden bilateral neurological deficits of the lower extremities and was later diagnosed with non-traumatic conus medullaris infarction. The purpose of this case report is to inform primary contact practitioners of the presentation, diagnosis and the associated risk factors of this condition in order to facilitate prompt management. CLINICAL FEATURES: Spinal cord infarction presenting as low back pain with a high degree of bilateral loss of motor strength, sensation and reflexes in the lower extremities and bowel/bladder dysfunction, in a patient with previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery and renal insufficiency. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: Referral to emergency within hours of symptom onset allowed for immediate assessment, management and relatively favourable partial recovery. SUMMARY: Although rare, conus medullaris infarction is potentially devastating and requires an appropriate clinical index of suspicion for timely diagnosis, treatment and optimal neurological recovery.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207