MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562123310 · doi:10.1155/2016/3257084

Extracorporeal Lung Support as a Bridge to Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tumor Embolism

2016· article· en· W2562123310 on OpenAlexaff
Vishnu Vasanthan, K. Halloran, Lakshmi Puttagunta, Jayan Nagendran

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Reports in Pulmonology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac tumors and thrombi
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExtracorporealExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationPulmonary embolismRespiratory failureLungRadiologyCardiologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bridging to diagnosis is an emerging technique used in end-stage cardiorespiratory failure that prolongs a patient's life using various modalities of extracorporeal lung support (ECLS) to achieve antemortem diagnosis. Pulmonary tumor embolism occurs when cell clusters travel from primary malignancies through venous circulation to the lungs, causing respiratory failure through inflammatory and venoocclusive pathways. Due to its nonspecific symptomatology, pulmonary tumor embolism remains an elusive diagnosis antemortem. Herein, we bridge a patient who presented in acute respiratory failure to the diagnosis of pulmonary tumor embolism from a gastric signet-ring cell carcinoma using ECLS modalities including venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and centrally cannulated Novalung pumpless extracorporeal lung assist. We demonstrate the utility of this approach in diagnostically uncertain cases in unstable patients who are potentially acceptable ECLS and transplant candidates.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Reports in PulmonologySame topicCardiac tumors and thrombiFrench-language works237,207