MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976461138 · doi:10.5414/cn106468

Sequential rupture of triceps and quadriceps tendons in a dialysis patient using hormone supplements

2010· article· en· W1976461138 on OpenAlexaff
I. Soo, J. Christiansen, D. Marion, Mark Courtney, Valérie A. Luyckx

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nephrology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDialysisContext (archaeology)Kidney diseaseSecondary hyperparathyroidismParathyroid hormoneQuadriceps tendonSurgeryHyperparathyroidismTendonInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spontaneous rupture of tendons is rare, and typically occurs in large weight bearing tendons such as the quadriceps, Achilles and patellar tendon, in the context of various chronic diseases including end-stage renal disease. In general, tendon rupture in dialysis patients is associated with hyperparathyroidism, long duration of dialysis, steroid and quinolone use. We present a case of a young man on chronic dialysis who presented with sequential rupture of triceps and quadriceps tendons requiring surgical repair, several months after initiating use of multiple hormone supplements including human growth hormone and androgens. The supplements were obtained over the internet with the aim of improving his kidney function. Although this patient did have hyperparathyroidism, it is likely his PTH elevation was exacerbated by use of human growth hormone, and tendon rupture risk increased by concurrent use of an androgen supplement. This case highlights the fact that dialysis patients do utilize alternative remedies and that there may be unexpected, dialysis-specific complications associated with their use.

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)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical NephrologySame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207