MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2287538811 · doi:10.1136/bcr-2014-207215

Medication-induced acute dystonic reaction: the challenge of diagnosing movement disorders in the intensive care unit

2015· article· en· W2287538811 on OpenAlexaff
Geneviève C. Digby, Shirin Jalini, Sean Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Case Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaStatus epilepticusDiphenhydraminePhenytoinPropofolIntensive care unitHaloperidolNeuroleptic malignant syndromeDifferential diagnosisStroke (engine)NeurologyEpilepsyIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 62-year-old man presented with left middle cerebral artery stroke. 1 h postadministration of tissue plasminogen activator, he received a total of 4 mg of haloperidol for combativeness. He developed partial complex status epilepticus, requiring benzodiazepines, phenytoin, propofol and intubation. 5 h later, he developed recurrent stereotyped tonic movements involving arching of the back, extension of the arms and contraction of opposing muscle groups. Repeat CT scan of the head showed evolving insular infarct. Differential diagnoses for these movements included tonic/clonic seizures, extensor (decerebrate) posturing from haemorrhagic conversion, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, or dystonic reaction. Given the lack of response to antiseizure medications, the recent administration of haloperidol, and the prompt resolution of movements following diphenhydramine administration, an acute dystonic reaction was considered. This atypical case of a critically ill patient with stroke highlights the fact that these patients may have multiple abnormal movements requiring careful analysis to guide diagnosis-specific management.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.003
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Case ReportsSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207