MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988078519 · doi:10.1097/paf.0b013e3182186b9b

Vertebral Artery Dissection Complicating Occipital Injection of Heparin for Treatment of Thoracic Outlet Syndrome

2011· article· en· W1988078519 on OpenAlexaff
Judy Melinek, Amy P. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeparinDissection (medical)Occipital arteryVertebral artery dissectionVertebral arteryThoracic outlet syndromeArterial dissectionSurgeryAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 38-year-old woman with a 2-year history of chronic neck pain radiating down her right arm underwent radiological and neurological evaluations, which revealed no anatomical cause for her pain. She sought alternative therapies including intramuscular heparin injections. Following a right occipital injection of heparin, cyanocobalamin, and lidocaine, she had a sudden cardiorespiratory arrest and was successfully resuscitated, but did not regain consciousness.Computed tomography of the head and neck and subsequent autopsy revealed a right vertebral artery dissection, but at autopsy, no significant subarachnoid hemorrhage was noted at the base of the brain. This is the first case report where heparin (a potent anticoagulant) used in an occipital injection was documented to cause a vertebral artery dissection. It is also the first reported case where radiographically and histologically documented vertebral artery dissection did not present with overwhelming subarachnoid hemorrhage at the base of the brain. The subtle gross anatomical findings in this case highlight the importance of evaluating the cervical spinal cord in any case of sudden cardiorespiratory arrest following even apparently minor neck injury.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.327
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designObservational
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 venueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & PathologySame topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207