MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110655231 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxaa113

A toddler with a subdural hemorrhage

2020· article· en· W3110655231 on OpenAlexaff
Brittany Anne Howson-Jan, Mihir D. Bhatt, Kathleen Nolan

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Abuse and Related Trauma
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLethargyMedicineBlood pressureToddlerVomitingPoor FeedingAnesthesiaHeart rateMydriasisPediatricsPhysical examinationHead traumaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A healthy 15-month-old male presents to a community hospital with a 4-day history of lethargy, vomiting, and decreased appetite. There is no report of fever, infectious symptoms, or trauma. He appears tired and dehydrated. Blood pressure is 107/67, heart rate is 94 bpm, and temperature is 36.8°C. Examination reveals normal cardiac, respiratory, and abdominal examinations, no focal neurologic deficits and no skin rashes or bruises. He is given oral rehydration and paediatrics is consulted for admission. When the paediatrician arrives, the patient wakes and cannot open his right eye. His right pupil is fixed and dilated and his blood pressure and heart rate are now 121/60 and 80 bpm, respectively. Increased intracranial pressure is suspected so a 5 mL/kg bolus of 3% saline is given and a CT head is done, which shows a large right subdural hemorrhage (SDH) with mass effect and parenchymal effacement (Figure 1). The patient is transferred to a tertiary centre for surgical intervention and consultation with the hospital child maltreatment team. Preliminary bloodwork is drawn and results are shown in Table 1. Further information confirms the diagnosis.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicChild Abuse and Related TraumaFrench-language works237,207