MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977060040 · doi:10.14740/jmc3357

Vasculitis and Steroid Psychosis: A Case Report and Review of Literature

2019· article· en· W2977060040 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elsa Araújo, Manuel Barbosa, Joana Silva, Joana Serôdio, João Costelha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrticaria and Related Conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVasculitisPsychosisPrednisoneAdverse effectAntipsychoticAntipsychotic AgentDiseasePediatricsTocilizumabPsychiatrySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)SurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corticosteroids have become the cornerstone of therapy for many pathologies such as vasculitis. Steroid psychosis is a known complication of corticosteroids therapy, although infrequent. We describe a case of psychosis secondary to corticosteroids in a 69-year-old man with large-vessel vasculitis without previous history of psychiatric pathology. He was diagnosed with large-vessel vasculitis and the treatment started with prednisone 1 mg/kg/day. One week later, the patient presented with behavior change: emotional lability, disorientation and aggressiveness. The symptoms worsened for hallucinatory activity and cognitive deficit. After exclusion of other causes, the diagnosis of psychosis secondary to corticosteroids was assumed. It was decided to wean corticosteroids and start new therapy with methotrexate and tocilizumab and introduction of antipsychotic therapy. The patient had a good outcome with disease remission and had no further neuropsychiatric symptomatology. Systemic corticosteroids are widely used, sometimes with a low concern of its potential adverse effects. So it is important that physicians are aware of the potential for their adverse effects and the need to monitor disease activity and drug toxicity.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 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 venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicUrticaria and Related ConditionsFrench-language works237,207