Diagnostic Approach to Myocarditis Mimicking Myocardial Infarction at Initial Presentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a case of a 35-year-old male patient with a 12-hour history of sudden-onset, crushing chest pain and associated complaints of profuse diaphoresis, nausea and vomiting. The patient was transferred to our institution from an outside hospital for evaluation and possible emergent catheterization. Left heart catheterization was conclusive for normal coronary arteries and a ventriculogram revealed a left ventricular ejection fraction of approximately 45%. Due to a suspicion of myocarditis based on clinical history, pertinent serology tests were ordered, which were found to be negative. Cardiac magnetic resonance on delayed enhancement imaging showed typical sub-epicardial enhancement in a pattern most consistent with myocarditis. The patient was eventually diagnosed with myocarditis and discharged home later, without needing a myocardial biopsy. We present and discuss here the indications of myocardial biopsy and compare the relative utility of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in formulating the diagnosis of myocarditis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".