MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206024795 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2021.473

P.224 A Case Report of Spinal Screws Penetrating the Pulmonary Artery

2021· article· en· W4206024795 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hany Girgis, D. S. Mulder

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryPulmonary arteryRadiologyAnterior spinal arteryExtravasationSpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Spinal instrumentation is commonly utilized to mechanically stabilize the spine in trauma, oncology and degenerative disease. Although several complications have been reported, this is the first case of screw penetration of the pulmonary artery. Methods: We present a case of a 74-year old gentleman who suffered from a thoracic spine chordoma. He underwent a T8 resection with T8-T12 instrumented fusion with subsequent radiation. Recurrence of his disease led to resection of his 3rd and 4th ribs and repeat radiation. He presented 6 years later with 2 episodes of massive hemoptysis. Review of the literature was conducted to search for similar complications. Results: A Chest Computed Tomography scan demonstrated the presence of a pedicle screw tip in the right pulmonary artery. Angiogram revealed no evidence of active arterial extravasation. In the operating room, the patient had a right lower lobectomy, with segmental pulmonary artery sacrifice, as well as replacement of the spinal fixation hardware. Literature review revealed multiple aortic injuries following spinal instrumentation. However, this was the first case of pulmonary artery erosion. Conclusions: Spinal instrumentation has been associated with screw migration and penetration of nearby tissues and vessels. A high incidence of suspicion is required when patients present with delayed and unusual complications.

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)0.004
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 score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0110.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicTrauma Management and DiagnosisFrench-language works237,207