MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904406887 · doi:10.1177/2324709618816501

Resistant Hypertension From Renal Artery Stenosis Leading to Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

2018· article· en· W2904406887 on OpenAlexafffund
Motasem Alyamani, Jissy Thomas, Miriam Shanks, Gavin Y. Oudit

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Investigative Medicine High Impact Case Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal and Vascular Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureCardiologyInternal medicineEjection fractionHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionRenal artery stenosisStenosisSecondary hypertensionLeft ventricular hypertrophyBlood pressureCoronary artery diseaseRenal arteryKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resistant hypertension remains an important cause of heart failure. In this article, we describe a case of resistant hypertension in a 63-year-old woman leading to heart failure and marked morbidity. Her clinical course was characterized by chronic pleural effusions and recurrent hospitalizations with respiratory failure and flash pulmonary edema associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Her transthoracic echocardiogram showed severe concentric left hypertrophy and diastolic dysfunction. The clinical phenotype was secondary to resistant hypertension due to bilateral renal artery stenosis, and her blood pressure and heart failure resolved after successful renal artery angioplasty. This case demonstrates how heart failure with preserved ejection fraction due to renal artery stenosis can easily go unrecognized especially in patients with multiple comorbidities. The potentially curable nature of this condition clearly warrants consideration especially in patients with multiple risk factors for atherosclerotic vascular disease.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Investigative Medicine High Impact Case ReportsSame topicRenal and Vascular PathologiesFrench-language works237,207