MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200087109 · doi:10.7759/cureus.20158

Persistent Hiccups As Presenting Symptom of COVID-19: A Case of 64-Year-Old Male From International Medical Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

2021· article· en· W4200087109 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Ibrahim Habadi, Nashaat S. Hamza, Tarig H Balla Abdalla, Afnan Al-Gedeei

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPathogenesis and Treatment of Hiccups
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHiccupsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PneumoniaPediatricsPhrenic nerveIntubationParalysisIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaSurgeryDiseaseInternal medicineRespiratory systemInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The possibilities of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to present with atypical manifestations have reported. Information of COVID-19 atypical signs and symptoms is still emerging globally. One of these presentations is persistent hiccups. One of the hypotheses is that COVID-19 has been linked to several neurological manifestations and effects. Some observations noticed phrenic nerve paralysis after COVID-19 infection leading to pulmonary failure. We report one case of COVID-19-positive patient where he presented with persistent hiccups. Many predisposing factors might lead to the development of hiccups in COVID-19 infection such as a history of smoking, phrenic and vagus nerve damage or irritation, high inflammatory markers, lower lobe pneumonia, ground-glass-like appearance on x-rays. We hypothesize that hiccups are the first sign of serious deterioration of patients with COVID-19 and such patients are at high risk of developing kidney injury and intubation.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicPathogenesis and Treatment of HiccupsFrench-language works237,207