MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159608009 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxab020

A teenager with ocular signs after tongue injury

2021· article· en· W3159608009 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katina Zheng, Michael D. O’Connor, Jean Philippe Vaccani, Erick Sell, Elka Miller, Eva Ouyang, Michelle T. Long

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Abuse and Related Trauma
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalAgricultural Research Institute of OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical schoolLibrary scienceHistoryMedicineMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 16-year-old female presented to the Emergency Department with a tongue laceration. She was playfighting with her brother who swung a samurai sword and cut her tongue as she tried to dodge it. She denied headaches, constitutional symptoms, weakness, or loss of consciousness. The history was otherwise unremarkable. She was alert with normal vital signs. Her tongue was swollen with a 1-cm laceration. She was admitted due to inability to tolerate oral intake. During admission, the patient reported having difficulty opening her right eye. On exam, she was found to have anisocoria but it was unclear whether this finding was new (Figure 1). With no other symptoms, her difficulty with right eye opening was presumed to be from direct trauma and the patient was discharged home. She returned days later with persistent symptoms. On examination, she was found to have right-sided ptosis and anisocoria. Pupils were 3 mm on the right and 5 mm on the left in bright illumination, with the right pupil dilating poorly and slowly in dim illumination. Her right neck was tender with no cervical spine tenderness. Carotid pulses were symmetric with no bruits. The remainder of the examination was unremarkable. Urgent imaging assisted in 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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