A Case of Transient Loss of Vision Following Coronary Angiography: Etiology, Investigation and Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cortical blindness is, thankfully, a rarely encountered complication of coronary angiography. We present the case of a 72-year-old Caucasian gentleman in whom bilateral visual loss occurred abruptly after exposure to contrast during diagnostic coronary angiography. Areas of acute cerebral infarction were not appreciated at initial cranial computed tomography. Leakage of contrast medium into the occipital cortices was similarly absent. The patient recovered vision within 24 hours. Given the frequency with which coronary angiography is performed worldwide, an awareness of the causes of cortical blindness following the same is important. Although already well elaborated in the literature related to both cardiology and radiology, there are few reports in the general medical or ophthalmology literature that describe transient cortical blindness after coronary angiography and detail contrast-associated visual loss. J Med Cases. 2016;7(9):379-383 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jmc2591w
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".