Minoxidil Associated Pericardial Effusion: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minoxidil is an antihypertensive that works by directly dilating peripheral vessels. The agent produces vasodilation via a cyclic AMP-mediated effect on arteriolar smooth muscle, with little effect on veins. There have been associations with its use and cause and/or exacerbation of pericardial effusions. This reported adverse effect resulted in a black box warning in the US, which states that minoxidil may cause pericarditis and pericardial effusion that may progress to tamponade. Specifically, patients with renal impairment not on dialysis and individuals with congestive heart failure are reported at higher risk. Here we report a case of a patient with underlying renal disease who presented to the hospital with hypertensive urgency. He developed a pericardial effusion soon after restarting minoxidil, which did not resolve until this medication was discontinued, despite undergoing a pericardial window. J Med Cases. 2015;6(2):65-67 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jmc1928w
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".