MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967436642 · doi:10.1001/archneurol.2011.85

In-flight Seizures and Fatal Air Embolism

2011· article· en· W1967436642 on OpenAlexaff
Javier Arnáiz, Enrique Marco de Lucas, Tatiana Piedra, María Elena Arnáiz García, Ashesh D. Patel, Agustín Gutiérrez

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Neurology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAir embolismMedicineEpilepsyPulmonary embolismMedical emergencyCardiologyInternal medicinePsychiatryComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe for the first time, to our knowledge, a case of recurrent in-flight-dependent seizures related to commercial airline flight in which the patient experienced a fatal air embolism secondary to a giant bronchogenic cyst. DESIGN: Case report. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENT: A female airline passenger presented with a seizure, then unconsciousness and death. The patient had experienced 2 previous episodes of in-flight seizures without any sequelae. RESULTS: The patient had an air embolism proved by findings on cranial computed tomography (CT) and a CT perfusion study. The embolism was secondary to a giant bronchogenic cyst that was evident on chest CT. The patient was examined after the previous episodes of in-flight seizures, but no chest radiography had been performed. CONCLUSIONS: We propose minor air embolism as a cause of in-flight seizures. This type of seizure can signify the existence of a giant bronchogenic cyst. We believe that obtaining a chest radiograph can be useful in patients with a history of in-flight seizures to rule out the presence of a bronchogenic cyst and to prevent a possibly fatal air embolism.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of NeurologySame topicCardiovascular and Diving-Related ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207