Laboratory confirmation of <i>Amanita smithiana</i> mushroom poisoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Here we present a case of Amanita smithiana poisoning resulting in acute kidney injury requiring dialysis, and highlight laboratory methods used to confirm the diagnosis. Identification of Amanita smithiana toxin using thin-layer chromatography can provide greater diagnostic certainty than history and renal function tests alone. CASE DETAILS: A 63-year-old male presented to hospital with anuria and gastrointestinal symptoms, two days after consuming a soup of wild mushrooms he had picked. He was found to be in acute renal failure, requiring hemodialysis. After nine days of supportive treatment, he recovered renal function, and was discharged in good health 15 days post-ingestion. The patient provided a sample of leftover soup, and examination of cooked mushroom fragments by a mycologist provided preliminary identification of A. smithiana. Thin-layer chromatography revealed the presence of A. smithiana toxin in the soup, confirming this identification. DISCUSSION: A. smithiana is a nephrotoxic mushroom that can be easily mistaken for the edible and highly prized Pine mushroom (Tricholoma magnivelare). It causes initial gastrointestinal symptoms, followed by acute renal failure. Treatment includes dialysis and supportive care until the patient recovers renal function. The chemical structure of the A. smithiana toxin is unknown, but it can be identified as a characteristic spot on thin-layer chromatography.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".