MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607207765 · doi:10.23907/2012.023

The Armanni-Ebstein Lesion and the Postmortem Diagnosis of Ketoacidosis

2012· article· en· W2607207765 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Milroy, Jacqueline L. Parai

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Forensic Pathology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Electricity Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKetoacidosisMedicineLesionAutopsyDiabetic ketoacidosisForensic pathologyPathologyDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineEndocrinologyType 1 diabetes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diagnoses of ketoacidosis and disturbances of glucose metabolism are difficult at autopsy because of changes in glucose concentrations postmortem. The Armanni-Ebstein lesion is a histological change in the kidney that has been reported as a marker of diabetic ketoacidosis. This paper examines the specificity of the Armanni-Ebstein lesion and the diagnosis of alterations in glucose metabolism and ketoacidosis at autopsy. The Armanni-Ebstein lesion consists of subnuclear vacuolation of the proximal tubules. The vacuoles contain fat and can be demonstrated on fresh and formalin fixed tissue using standard fat stains. Recently it has been reported in other conditions associated with non-diabetic ketoacidosis. The lesion has the same appearance whatever the cause of the ketoacidosis. This review, with illustrative cases shows the Armanni-Ebstein lesion is a marker of ketoacidosis and not specific for diabetic ketoacidosis. It may be seen in cases of diabetic and alcoholic ketoacidosis and in starvation and hypothermia, in which ketoacidosis occurs. It has also been reported in isopropanol poisoning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Forensic PathologySame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207