MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894623269 · doi:10.3138/jammi.2018-0023

Tuberculosis of the foot mimicking Charcot arthropathy

2018· article· en· W2894623269 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Salem Agabawi, Andrew Walkty, Brad Pilkey, Rick Bhullar, Elly Trepman, John M. Embil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsShared HealthUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTuberculosisArthropathyLeprosyMycobacterium tuberculosisAcid-fastSurgeryMiliary tuberculosisDifferential diagnosisSputumDermatologyOsteoarthritisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mycobacterium tuberculosis bone and joint infection accounts for 2% to 3% of all tuberculosis cases but is uncommon in the foot. A 32-year-old woman had foot pain and swelling, and radiographs showed midfoot bony destruction and fragmentation. She was diagnosed with Charcot arthropathy, but had no neuropathy or improvement despite total contact casting. Bone biopsy 16 months after initial presentation did not show acid-fast bacilli on smear, but M. tuberculosis was recovered on culture; concurrent chest radiographs showed patchy and nodular opacities in both upper lung zones, consistent with previous pulmonary tuberculosis. Sputum smear showed acid-fast bacilli and culture yielded M. tuberculosis. In retrospect, the patient was at increased risk for M. tuberculosis infection because of previous residence in Myanmar and India. Clinicians should consider M. tuberculosis infection in the differential diagnosis of Charcot arthropathy for patients who have exposure history and absence of risk factors for Charcot arthropathy.

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)0.004
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease CanadaSame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207