Can rt-PA be Administered to the Wrong Patient? Two Patients with Somatoform Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intravenous rt-PA (i.v. rt-PA) for acute stroke has raised many concerns, including its inadvertent use in patients presenting with acute stroke-like symptoms as the expression of their somatoform disorder. Diagnosis of the somatoform disorder is often delayed, and thrombolytics in these patients for their stroke-like presentation subjects them to risk for hemorrhage. METHODS: The presentation, neurological findings, and the therapeutic decision making was audited in 85 patients who received i.v. rt-PA for a diagnosis of acute stroke. All the surviving patients were re-examined neurologically at least three months after i.v. rt-PA. Baseline and follow-up brain CT scans were re-reviewed by a neuroradiologist who was blinded to clinical presentation and outcome. Patients whose clinical presentation, brain CT and neurological outcome did not fit into known or expected anatomical and clinical patterns of stroke underwent psychological assessment using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. RESULTS: In two patients three stroke-like presentations of somatoform disorder inadvertently were treated with i.v. rt-PA. This was primarily caused by abbreviated neurological examination and narrow differential diagnosis. INTERPRETATION: Patients with somatoform disorder may present with symptoms mimicking acute stroke. Under the time constraints of i.v. rt-PA use, a diagnosis of somatoform disorder can be missed, subjecting such patients to the potential complications of thrombolytics.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".