MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412455279 · doi:10.1136/bcr-2016-215491

Treatment of severe, refractory and rapidly evolving thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura

2016· article· en· W2412455279 on OpenAlexaff
Rey Acedillo, Mayur Govind, Abdullah Kashgary, William F. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Case Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicComplement system in diseases
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombotic thrombocytopenic purpuraRituximabBortezomibSplenectomyRefractory (planetary science)SurgeryCyclophosphamidePediatricsInternal medicinePlateletMultiple myelomaChemotherapyLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 36-year-old man presented to hospital with gross haematuria and evidence of severe, refractory thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Initial treatment with high-volume plasma exchange therapy and early administration of rituximab failed to achieve a sustained clinical response. His clinical course was complicated by left hemianopsia and despite an urgent splenectomy he developed a large right-sided stroke with malignant cerebral oedema that required an emergent decompressive craniotomy. He also had numerous infectious complications as a consequence of an aggressive immunosuppressive strategy. While the patient did not respond to cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, N-acetylcysteine, and one course of bortezomib, he eventually responded to a second course of bortezomib. One year later, the patient remains in remission and maintains excellent cognitive function. However, he has not completely recovered from his stroke and continues to participate in rehabilitation for his residual physical deficits.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Case ReportsSame topicComplement system in diseasesFrench-language works237,207