MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036800923 · doi:10.14740/jmc.v5i9.1910

Constrictive Pericarditis: Rapid Progression of Pericardial Calcification in a Patient With Hemodialysis and Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

2014· article· en· W2036800923 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Naoki Onoda, Syu Yamamoto, T Oomiya, Takayuki Honjyo, Yasuyoshi Iwato, Takeshi Shichijyo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPericarditis and Cardiac Tamponade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConstrictive pericarditisPericardiumPericardiectomyHemodialysisCardiologyCalcificationSurgeryInternal medicineArteryCoronary artery diseasePericarditis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 72-year-old man, with a history of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) undergone19 years previously and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis since 1 year before, was admitted for evaluation of dropping arterial pressure down 1 hour after starting hemodialysis. On a computed tomography on chest scan, markedly calcified pericardium on the posterior and diaphragmatic sides of the heart was revealed. Pericardium was mostly not calcified 2 years before admission, pre-initiation of hemodialysis, and the thickness of calcified pericardium was obviously increased after initiation of hemodialysis. Constrictive pericarditis (CP) was diagnosed and subsequent pericardiectomy was underwent, and dropping atrial pressure down during hemodialysis disappeared. The main cause of CP was not cardiac surgery undergone previously (postoperative CP). It is probable that secondary hyperparathyroidism in ESRD provoked dystrophic calcification of pericardium, which was injured by past CABG, subsequent rigid and thickness of pericardium, and constrictive physiology became obvious. J Med Cases. 2014;5(9):498-501 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jmc1910w

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicPericarditis and Cardiac TamponadeFrench-language works237,207