MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2975179707 · doi:10.14740/jmc3327

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as a Bridge to Initial Medical Therapy in a Patient With Decompensated Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Presenting With Biventricular Failure

2019· article· en· W2975179707 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Donovan Mabe, Oksana A. Shlobin, Linda Bogar, Steven D. Nathan, Anne Brown, Kareem Ahmad, Shambhu Aryal, Charles Murphy, Christopher S. King

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationCardiologyInternal medicinePulmonary hypertensionRespiratory failureHeart failureShock (circulatory)Myocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be used as a bridge to medical therapy in decompensated right heart failure due to pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). A middle-aged man with previously undiagnosed pulmonary hypertension was successfully bridged to intravenous prostanoid therapy with venoarterial ECMO support after presenting with cardiogenic shock and hypoxemic respiratory failure. Although the patient initially had biventricular failure, PAH was suspected due to underlying mixed connective tissue disease and disproportionate right ventricular dysfunction. On occasion, patients with PAH may present with biventricular failure. A high index of suspicion for PAH and serial reassessment of left ventricular function following correction of shock may demonstrate improvement in left ventricular function, allowing for initiation of pulmonary vasodilator therapy.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Cases→Same topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→