MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4241279955 · doi:10.14740/jmc1895w

Troponin I Elevation Due to Alcoholism in Absence of Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Case Report

2014· article· en· W4241279955 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hongxiu Luo, Nilma Malik, Qiang Nai, Naureen Jessani, Mahmood Alam, Mohammed A. Islam, Abdalla Yousif

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyTroponin IMyocardial infarctionAcute coronary syndromeTroponinCardiomyopathyHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac troponin I (cTnI), a sensitive and specific marker for myocardial injury, has been utilized for the diagnosis of an acute myocardial infarction. However, a variety of clinical scenarios without evidence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), such as pulmonary embolism, sepsis, renal failure or stress-induced cardiomyopathy may also cause the elevation of cTnI. We described a 55-year-old Hispanic male with abnormal elevations of cTnI without objective evidence of myocardial infarction damage. We hypothesized that his long-term chronic alcoholic intoxication is causing the myocardial injury, responsive for cTnI elevation. We proposed that alcohol-induced early myocardial damage, independent of alcoholic cardiomyopathy, might be related to alcohol-induced cTnI elevation in this patient. This is the first report suggesting that the abnormal elevations of cTnI can be seen in patients with chronic alcoholism without objective evidence of myocardial infarction. J Med Cases. 2014;5(10):545-548 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jmc1895w

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.004
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Cases→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→