MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3022541158 · doi:10.1503/cjs.011018

Association of recreational drug consumption, cardiac toxicity and heart transplantation

2019· article· en· W3022541158 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michel Carrier, Geneviève Giraldeau, Marie-Claude Parent, Anique Ducharme

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockRecreational drug useTransplantationHeart transplantationRecreational DrugMedical historyInternal medicineCardiologyIntensive care medicineSurgeryDrugPharmacologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary: Cardiac toxicity from recreational drug use remains difficult to establish. We report the cases of 3 young patients who were hospitalized for cardiogenic shock. All were bridged to transplantation with implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). They underwent uneventful heart transplantation. The patients did not have any significant personal or family medical history, but all admitted consuming large quantities of recreational drugs daily. Histological examination of the native heart did not show any inflammation or infiltrative myocardial disease. In this series of young patients presenting in cardiogenic shock with minimal histologic findings on examination of the native hearts, the association between cardiac toxicity and active use of recreational drugs remains a strong possibility. The transplant community should be made aware of this possible association in the current era of legalization and social trivialization of drug consumption.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Surgery→Same topicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research→French-language works237,207→