MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003712208 · doi:10.1016/j.rmcr.2020.101004

An unusual cause of exertional dyspnea in a 55 years old man

2020· article· en· W3003712208 on OpenAlexaff
Felix-Antoine Vézina, Daniel Milad, Krystelle Godbout, Mélanie Bernier, François Maltais, Éric Nadreau, Mario Sénéchal

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Medicine Case Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory and Cough-Related Research
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHyperventilationVocal cord dysfunctionExertionVentilation (architecture)LaryngoscopyCardiologyLarynxBreathingAnesthesiaPhysical therapyInternal medicineSurgeryAsthmaIntubation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 55-year-old former professional athlete reported out of proportion dyspnea on exertion. After a detailed cardiac investigation, a cardiopulmonary exercise test on an ergocycle demonstrated an abnormal and non-physiological ventilatory response characterized by a sharp rise in ventilation followed by a decrease while exercise workload was progressively increasing. This was accompanied by noisy breathing. A laryngoscopy with direct visualisation of larynx and vocal cord during voluntary eucapnic hyperventilation confirmed the diagnosis of exercise-induced laryngeal obstruction. The patient was treated with speech therapy and all the symptoms resolved. A second cardiopulmonary exercise test showed a normalisation of the ventilatory pattern during exercise. This case demonstrates the importance of recognizing the symptoms of an exercise-induced laryngeal obstruction regardless of age, and the effectiveness of the speech therapy on symptoms and on exercise testing.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory Medicine Case ReportsSame topicRespiratory and Cough-Related ResearchFrench-language works237,207