MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016122576 · doi:10.1097/mjt.0b013e3181f69ef3

Levodopa Treatment of Late Onset Extrapyramidal Movements in a Child After High Voltage Electrocution

2011· article· en· W2016122576 on OpenAlexaff
Miguel Glatstein, Dennis Scolnik, Eduardo Mari, Matías Penazzi, Aurora Ruiz, Claudio Waisburg

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Therapeutics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrocutionMedicineLevodopaBasal gangliaAnesthesiaMagnetic resonance imagingNeurological examinationSurgeryCardiologyRadiologyInternal medicineDiseaseParkinson's diseaseCentral nervous systemMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the case of a 12-year-old girl with abnormal extrapyramidal movements associated with basal ganglia lesions after electrical injury. After her injury, our patient initially did well and recovered from acute cardiovascular and hemodynamic instability, and the results of her neurological examination, head computed tomography scan, and electroencephalogram were normal on discharge from hospital. Two weeks after discharge, she developed extrapyramidal movements, and head magnetic resonance imaging showed areas of bilateral, symmetrical enhanced associated with signal intensity in the basal ganglia, hypoxic encephalopathy, and cerebral edema that may have occurred secondary to the cardiopulmonary arrest that she suffered immediately after her accident. The symptoms disappeared after low dose levodopa was instituted and have not recurred during the 15 months of treatment. Injury and death from electric current, although rare, are not uncommon and occur mostly as a result of accidental contact with a live wire. This is the first case report documenting the use of levodopa for extrapyramidal movements secondary to high-tension electrocution.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TherapeuticsSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207