MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hyperacute Superior Vena Cava Syndrome associated with Central Venous Catheter Insertion

2019· article· en· W2972811278 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Edginton, Adam Fundytus

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Critical Care Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSuperior vena cava syndromeCentral venous catheterSuperior vena cavaVena cavaPersistent left superior vena cavaCatheterSurgeryCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome is classically thought of as a complication of malignancy. However, SVC syndrome secondary to indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) is another important entity. Amongst those with CVCs who develop SVC syndrome, the majority are attributed to thrombosis. Aside from thrombosis, CVCs can lead to SVC syndrome secondary to mechanical obstruction of blood flow in an already narrowed vessel.We present the first case of hyperacute SVC syndrome that developed within 6 hours of insertion of a CVC into a patient's right internal jugular vein alongside a pre-existing right internal jugular tunnelled dialysis line. With removal of the line, the patient's symptoms resolved completely within hours. The patient also was found to have stenosis of superior vena cava, likely secondary to multiple instrumentations.Physicians must be diligent to monitor for this complication in patients who have had previous instrumentations of major vessels when inserting CVCs. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Edginton S, Fundytus A. Hyperacute Superior Vena Cava Syndrome associated with Central Venous Catheter Insertion. Indian J Crit Care Med 2019;23(3):152-154.

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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of Critical Care MedicineSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207