MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3147144301 · doi:10.1136/bcr-2020-241034

VA-ECMO as a salvage strategy for blunt cardiac injury in the context of multisystem trauma

2021· article· en· W3147144301 on OpenAlexaff
Gary Peter Misselbrook, S. Morad Hameed, Naisan Garraway, Rihab Al-Lawati

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Case Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationMyocardial infarctionVentricular fibrillationContext (archaeology)Percutaneous coronary interventionCardiologyVentricular tachycardiaInternal medicineCardiac tamponadeEmergency departmentSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 47-year-old man sustained multisystem injuries after being struck by a vehicle travelling at high speeds. Shortly after admission to the emergency department he suffered a ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest lasting 30 min. Investigations following return of spontaneous circulation raised suspicion for an anterolateral ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Despite his major traumatic injuries the patient was transferred for percutaneous coronary intervention uncovering a complete thrombosis of the ostium of the left anterior descending artery. Immediately following coronary revascularisation, the patient developed cardiogenic shock resulting in a multidisciplinary decision to place the patient on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). The management of cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction with VA-ECMO and multiple traumatic injuries were often at odds with each other, resulting in a series of challenging decisions on timing of surgery and anticoagulation. The patient was liberated from VA-ECMO after 72 hours and continues rehabilitation in hospital.

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)0.000
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 score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Case ReportsSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207