MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119377978 · doi:10.1183/09031936.06.00096005

Positional hyperventilation-induced hypoxaemia in pectus excavatum

2006· article· en· W2119377978 on OpenAlexfundno aff
B. Wallaert, B. Cavestri, Christina Fournier, Rémi Nevière, B. Aguilaniu

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineHyperventilationCardiologySupine positionInternal medicineAnesthesiaPectus excavatumRight-to-left shuntPatent foramen ovaleAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presented case is of a young male (aged 19 yrs) with a pectus excavatum who showed significant exercise intolerance, despite normal pulmonary function at rest, including carbon monoxide diffusing capacity. Clinical exercise testing led to a strong suspicion of a right-to-left shunt due to an abnormally wide alveolo-arterial oxygen gradient (26.4 kPa) at peak oxygen uptake, with severe arterial hypoxaemia (arterial oxygen tension 12.54 kPa). A right-to-left shunt was confirmed by transoesophageal echocardiography demonstrating a permeable foramen ovale, despite normal right heart pressures. The right-to-left venous flow was mainly dependent on the upright body position and the deep inspiration. Indeed, i.v. dobutamine infusion to selectively affect cardiac output and hyperventilation induced by tidal volume expansion at constant breathing rate in the supine position did not result in arterial oxygen desaturation or shunting. Closure of the foramen ovale through atrial umbrella placement dramatically improved clinical and physiological abnormalities. This observation demonstrates that a hyperventilatory manoeuvre in the upright position is able to detect a permeable foramen ovale favouring flow in the inferior vena cava in the direction of the abnormal pre-existing atrial channel in a patient with a pectus excavatum.

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)0.000
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 score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicCardiovascular and Diving-Related ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207