MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231294618 · doi:10.14740/jmc2480w

Acute Lower Limb Ischemia as Presenting Symptom of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated With Left Ventricular Thrombus in a Young Male Patient: A Case Report

2016· article· en· W4231294618 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aurora Bakalli, Krenare Limani, Laura Leci-Tahiri, Sami Gjoka, Edita Pllana

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac tumors and thrombi
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombusLeft ventricular thrombusMyocardial infarctionCardiologyInternal medicineAnginaEmbolizationUnstable anginaArterySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Left ventricular (LV) thrombus is one of myocardial infarction (MI) complications and if the thrombus is mobile and protruding, there is a high risk of embolization. It is exceptionally rare that the presenting serious symptom of acute MI is severe leg pain. We report here a rare case of a 36-year-old Caucasian male patient with unrecognized MI complicated by LV thrombus. His initial visit to the physician was due to sudden onset of severe left leg pain as a consequence of thromboembolism. Medical examination revealed occluded left femoral commune artery and femoral superficial artery, subacute MI and apical LV thrombus, which were treated accordingly. On follow-up, 2 months after hospital discharge, patient affirmed that he has been walking for approximately 3 km every day, without leg cramps or angina. Early recognition of MI, even when presented with atypical symptoms in young individuals and its prompt treatment is important to improve survival, as well as to reduce thrombotic events. J Med Cases. 2016;7(5):184-186 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jmc2480w

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicCardiac tumors and thrombiFrench-language works237,207