MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083459059 · doi:10.4103/0974-2069.84664

Kingella kingae endocarditis: A rare case of mitral valve perforation

2011· article· en· W2083459059 on OpenAlexaff
AnthonyA Holmes, Tawny Hung, Derek G. Human, Andrew Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pediatric Cardiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKingella kingaeMedicineEndocarditisEikenella corrodensHaemophilus parainfluenzaePerforationInfective endocarditisSurgeryInternal medicineHaemophilus influenzaeMicrobiologySeptic arthritisAntibioticsArthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kingella kingae, a HACEK (Haemophilus parainfluenzae, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Aggregatibacter aphrophilus, Cardiobacterium hominis, Eikenella corrodens, Kingella kingae) organism, is a common resident of the upper airway in children; it has been associated with endocarditis in children with pre-existing heart conditions. This case report describes K. kingae endocarditis leading to valvular damage in a previously healthy 18-month-old child. Our patient developed a K. kingae bacteremia that was later complicated by meningitis, septic embolic stroke, and endocarditis of the mitral valve, leading to perforation of the posterolateral leaflet. The patient was initially treated conservatively with cefotaxime but, subsequently, required a mitral valve repair with a pericardial patch and annuloplasty. This report draws attention to the need for clinicians to be aware of the potentially serious complications of K. kingae infection in young children. If K. kingae infection is suspected then therapy should be initiated promptly with a β-lactam, followed by early echocardiographic assessment. This case also highlights the lack of specific guidelines available for K. kingae endocarditis.

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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Pediatric CardiologySame topicInfective Endocarditis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207