MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334114014 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100002067

Accidental Hydrogen Peroxide Ingestion

2002· article· fr· W2334114014 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mark E. Hudon, Sarah Furtado, Sébastien Jodoin, William Hu, Robert J. Sevick

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIngestionHydrogen peroxideAccidentalAction (physics)Medical emergencyMedicineChemistryToxicologyInternal medicinePhysicsBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 78-year-old gentleman was found by his son approximately one hour after accidental ingestion of 30-50 ml of 35% hydrogen peroxide; this was taken in error instead of intended gastrograffin in preparation for abdominal CT.The patient was confused, vomiting and was rushed to hospital.Examination by ICU staff at the time of admission disclosed a fluctuating level of consciousness.Initial examination by the consulting neurologist the day following ingestion showed stupor, a left sixth nerve palsy, absence of left sided movement and bilateral Babinskis.MRI at this point showed multiple foci of restricted diffusion and abnormal T2 signal throughout the anterior and posterior circulations including the right occipital lobe as well as multiple foci in the parietal lobes, right greater than left (Figures 1,2,3).After discussion with the family, level 3 care was instituted (no code, comfort measures only).However, by the next day, the patient demonstrated dramatic improvement and re-examination by the neurology service five days after ingestion demonstrated a normal neurologic exam, including the patient's recall of solution ingestion.Investigations at this point showed normal carotid Doppler flow studies, normal cardiac ventricular function, moderate aortic regurgitation and

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207