MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901645458 · doi:10.1177/1078155218812945

A case of severe, irreversible hypocalcemia after one dose of pamidronate administered for hypercalcemia of malignancy

2018· article· en· W2901645458 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBisphosphonateMalignancyvitamin D deficiencyIncidence (geometry)Vitamin D and neurologyCancerInternal medicineOsteoporosisGastroenterologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a case report of a patient who developed severe, irreversible hypocalcemia after receiving one dose of pamidronate 90 mg for hypercalcemia of malignancy. Hypocalcemia is a known risk of bisphosphonate treatments, but the incidence of severe hypocalcemia is rare, and the risk factors are well established. However, in the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy, the treatment objective is to reduce the elevated serum calcium level, and the bisphosphonate is usually given as one time dose only. The potential for developing severe hypocalcemia may not be considered a significant concern in this setting compared to the setting of the treatment of bone metastasis, where the baseline serum calcium level is not elevated and the bisphosphonate is administered at a regular interval of every three to four weeks. Furthermore, there is unawareness of prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in cancer patients, especially in those with advanced cancer, which may lead to inadvertent, severe hypocalcemia from bisphosphonate treatment. The objective of this case report is to bring awareness to the risk of severe hypocalcemia in patients with hypercalcemia of malignancy and the high prevalence of unrecognized vitamin D deficiency in cancer patients.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oncology Pharmacy PracticeSame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207