Lymphohistiocytic Myocarditis Possibly Due to Moderna mRNA-1273 Vaccine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite the clear benefits of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination in mitigating the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, there are emerging reports of postvaccination myocarditis, the majority of which are diagnosed based on the clinical and radiologic findings without biopsy confirmation. We report a case of biopsy-confirmed lymphohistiocytic myocarditis after Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccination. METHODS: We describe a case of a previously healthy 45-year-old woman who had palpitations, exercise intolerance, and syncope 1 week after her first mRNA-1273 vaccine dose. Laboratory tests and cardiac imaging were compatible with myocarditis. Given her unusual clinical presentation, an endomyocardial biopsy was performed to exclude other potential etiologies. RESULTS: The endomyocardial biopsy specimen showed patchy endocardial and intramyocardial lymphohistiocytic infiltrates with scattered eosinophils and focal myocyte injury. CD3 and CD68 immunostains confirmed the lymphocytic and histiocytic nature of the infiltrate, respectively. A focal histiocytic collection suggestive of an ill-defined granuloma was present. The histologic and immunohistochemical findings of a lymphohistiocytic myocarditis were highly suggestive of a postvaccination hypersensitivity reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is a rare adverse event. The findings of a lymphohistiocytic myocarditis with scattered eosinophils and a possible ill-defined granuloma are highly suggestive of a hypersensitivity reaction. The mechanism by which this inflammation occurs remains uncertain. Despite our findings, the benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination far outweigh the risks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".