Lactic Acidosis Induced by Linezolid Mimics Symptoms of an Acute Intracranial Bleed: A Case Report and Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lactic acidosis is common and most often associated with disturbed acid-base balance. Rarely, it can be a life-threatening medication side effect. Hence, determining the etiology of lactic acidosis early in patients is paramount in choosing the correct therapeutic intervention. Although lactic acidosis as an adverse drug reaction of linezolid is a well-recognized and documented clinical entity, the occurrence of such mimicking an acute intracranial bleed has not been reported to our knowledge. The following case is presented as an example of such an occurrence. A 67-year-old woman presented to the emergency department for lethargy, nausea and syncope. The head CT did not demonstrate any bleeding or mass effect, but lab results were significant for elevated lactic acid. The patient recently underwent left total hip replacement surgery, which was complicated by a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. She received 6 weeks of oral linezolid therapy. And upon learning that key part of her history, the linezolid was discontinued. Her lactic acid rapidly normalized and she was discharged home. Several publications demonstrate that linezolid induces lactic acidosis by disrupting crucial mitochondrial functions. It is essential that clinicians are aware that linezolid can cause lactic acidosis. And, the important reminder is that adverse drug reactions can often mimic common diseases. If it is not recognized early, ominous clinical consequences may occur. In conclusion, linezolid should be suspected and included in the differential diagnosis if lactic acidosis exists with an uncommon clinical picture.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".