MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973674475 · doi:10.4021//jmc.v2i1.98

Reversible Posterior Leucoencephalopathy Syndrome Following Duloxetine: A Case Report and Review of Literature

2011· article· en· W1973674475 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christine Chhakchhuak, Mohammad Anower, Mukta Panda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological Complications and Syndromes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDuloxetineReversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndromePosterior reversible encephalopathy syndromeHeadachesWhite matterAnesthesiaMagnetic resonance imagingPsychiatryVasoconstrictionPathologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reversible Posterior Leucoencephalopathy Syndrome (RPLS) is a disorder characterized by headaches, confusion, and/or decreased level of consciousness, seizures, and visual changes. A 58-year-old female was found unresponsive, with generalized rigidity and urinary incontinence for unknown duration. On presentation, she was febrile, tachycardic, tachypneic, and hypertensive. Neurological exam showed increased muscle tone and brisk deep tendon reflexes. Brain MRI revealed gyriform edema and white matter hypodensities in parieto-occipital regions consistent with RPLS. Discontinuation of duloxetine, one of her home medications, led to resolution of symptoms. We report this case to discuss the syndrome of RPLS and propose the role of duloxetine in causing hypertension and cerebral vasoconstriction leading to RPLS. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of RPLS resulting from the use of duloxetine. doi:10.4021/jmc98w

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicNeurological Complications and SyndromesFrench-language works237,207