MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888517186 · doi:10.14740/jmc.v9i9.3116

Secondary Peritonitis in Peritoneal Dialysis: A Case Report and Review of Literature

2018· article· en· W2888517186 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhammad Imran Khan, Firas A. Adeel, Faraz Khan Luni, Abdur Rahman Khan, Deepak Malhotra, Joan Duggan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExploratory laparotomyPeritonitisPeritoneal dialysisPerforationSurgeryLaparotomyGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 41-year-old female with Down’s syndrome on peritoneal dialysis (PD) presented with PD-related peritonitis which was not responding to guideline-directed antimicrobial therapy. Computed tomography scan revealed air in the peritoneal cavity initially suspected to be secondary to her PD. Multiple enteric bacteria were identified in the PD fluid which raised suspicion for perforation. A perforated diverticulum was eventually diagnosed with exploratory laparotomy. Spontaneous perforated viscus in patients undergoing PD is rare, but without prompt and aggressive intervention may be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We discuss the case and review the literature highlighting the delay in the diagnoses of such cases and the role of imaging and exploratory laparotomy. Finally, recovery of multiple enteric pathogens in the workup of PD-associated peritonitis should raise the suspicion of possible viscus perforation. J Med Cases. 2018;9(9):289-292 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc3116w

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207