MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794093112 · doi:10.5935/0004-2749.20180014

Intravitreal Angiostrongylus cantonensis: first case report in South America

2018· letter· en· W2794093112 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel Costa de Andrade, João Rafael de Oliveira Dias, André Maia, Liliane de Almeida Kanecadan, Nilva Simeren Bueno de Moraes, Rubens Belfort, Jade Lasiste, Miguel N. Burnier

Bibliographic record

VenueArquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMollusks and Parasites Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngiostrongylus cantonensisVitrectomyPars planaAngiostrongyliasisMedicineFundus (uterus)OphthalmologyVisual acuity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study reports the first case of intravitreal angiostrongyliasis in South America treated with posterior worm removal via pars plana vitrectomy. This was a retrospective, observational case study. Data from medical charts, wide-field digital imaging, ocular ultrasound, and visual evoked potential studies were reviewed. A 20-month-old boy presented with eosinophilic meningitis and right eye exotropia. Polymerase chain reaction analysis of the cerebrospinal fluid showed a positive result for Angiostrongylus cantonensis. Fundus examination revealed a pale optic disc, subretinal tracks, vitreous opacities, peripheral tractional retinal detachment, and a dead worm in the vitreous cavity. The patient underwent pars plana vitrectomy with worm removal. This case report illustrates the first case of intravitreal angiostrongyliasis in South America, possibly related to the uncontrolled spread of an exotic invasive species of snail.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArquivos Brasileiros de OftalmologiaSame topicMollusks and Parasites StudiesFrench-language works237,207