MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221098858 · doi:10.14740/jmc3906

Intraoperative Anaphylaxis Following Injection of a Bleomycin-Gelatin Solution for Sclerotherapy

2022· article· en· W4221098858 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Weiss Roberts, Leah E. Braswell, Gregory Maves, Kimberly Stumpf, Margaret Redmond, Joseph D. Tobias

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnaphylaxisGelatinSclerotherapyBleomycinPerioperativeAnesthesiaSurgeryAllergyChemotherapyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the perioperative period, the most commonly identified agents that are responsible for acute allergic reactions include antibiotics, neuromuscular blocking agents, opioids, chlorhexidine, and iodinated dyes for radiologic imaging. However, whenever an allergic reaction is suspected, all of the agents to which the patient has been exposed must be considered. Although bleomycin is utilized as the primary agent for sclerotherapy in the treatment of vascular malformations, other substances such as Surgiflo ® may be added to the bleomycin solution to increase its efficacy and promote thrombosis of the smaller vessels. These products are derived from animal collagen and contain gelatin which may lead to an allergic reaction. We present an 11-year-old girl undergoing sclerotherapy treatment of an extensive left lower extremity venous malformation who subsequently developed perioperative hemodynamic instability requiring intervention after receiving an injection of a bleomycin and Surgiflo ® solution. Further investigation identified gelatin in the Surgiflo ® as the causative agent of the allergic event. Previous reports of such reactions are reviewed and the perioperative care and treatment of patients who experience anaphylaxis is addressed. J Med Cases. 2022;13(4):159-162 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc3906

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207