MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140715962 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.100450

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Polyarteritis Nodosa

2010· article· en· W2140715962 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hitomi Kobayashi, Isamu Yokoe, Naoichiro Hattan, Hiroshi Ohta, Yasuo Nakajima, Yasuyuki Kobayashi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVasculitis and related conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingPolyarteritis nodosaVascular diseaseNuclear magnetic resonanceRadiologyVasculitisPathologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although cases of coronary artery aneurysm formation and myocardial infarction due to dissection in patients with polyarteritis nodosa (PAN) have been reported 1,2 , there are no reports evaluating widespread coronary arteritis accompanied by myocardial damage using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI).We performed cMRI on a young man with widespread coronary arteritis resulting from PAN, and evaluated the changes in myocardial involvement after 3 months.This case involved a 35-year-old male who, in July 2009, noted unintentional weight loss (4 kg in 1 month), fever, and joint pain.Toward the end of August, he presented for examination after noticing paresthesia and myalgia in both lower extremities and discomfort in the chest unrelated to physical exertion.There was nothing remarkable in medical histories of the patient or family.There were no irregular vital signs but there was muscular tenderness in both lower extremities.Electrocardiogram revealed slightly elevated ST in II, III, and aVF leads.Laboratory examination showed leukocytosis (11,000/µl), elevated C-reactive protein (11.42 mg/dl), and elevated creatine kinase (CPK 170 U/l, CPK-MB 35.9), but no evidence of renal or hepatic dysfunction.No obvious

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicVasculitis and related conditionsFrench-language works237,207