MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073748592 · doi:10.12968/hmed.2010.71.5.47918

Rheumatic mitral valve disease in pregnancy

2010· article· en· W2073748592 on OpenAlexaff
Simon W Dubrey, Sanjay K Kohli, Richard Grocott-Mason, Mandish Dhanjal, Prakash P Punjabi, Petros Nihoyannopoulos, Catherine Nelson‐Piercy

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Hospital Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineAsymptomaticMitral valve stenosisPulmonary hypertensionMitral valvePregnancyHaemolysisStenosisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 32-year-old Nepalese woman with known rheumatic mitral valve disease presented 17 weeks into her first pregnancy with exertional breathlessness and wheezing, leading to expectoration of foamy pink liquid. Her history included percutaneous balloon mitral valvotomy at the age of 25 years, after which she had remained asymptomatic and fully active. She had three episodes of acute pulmonary oedema and was transferred to a tertiary centre for further management. An echocardiogram suggested severe mitral stenosis (mitral valve area 1.0 cm 2 ) and pulmonary hypertension (mean pulmonary artery pressure 87 mmHg). She had further episodes of pulmonary oedema despite maximal medical therapy with diuretics, cardioselective beta blockers (dose limited because of systolic hypotension), digoxin, nitrates and anticoagulation. At 21 weeks' gestation, an emergency St Jude metallic valve was implanted. Unfortunately, intrauterine death occurred 2 days postoperatively, likely caused by pre-eclampsia or haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP) syndrome. The patient recovered well and continues on warfarin and a small dose of beta blocker.

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)0.003
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 score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Hospital MedicineSame topicCardiovascular Issues in PregnancyFrench-language works237,207