MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4245763436 · doi:10.14740/jmc2915w

Acute Limb Ischemia in a Previously Undiagnosed Case of Mid-Ventricular Non-Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

2017· article· en· W4245763436 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Imo Ebong, John D. Rozich, Madhan Shanmugasundaram, Zachary Taylor, Rajesh Janardhanan, Divya Kapoor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineThrombusHypertrophic cardiomyopathyAneurysmAngiographyStenosisRevascularizationRadiologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mid-ventricular hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is rare and when associated with an apical aneurysm has a high risk of thrombus formation and embolization. We report a case of a 70-year-old man with peripheral vascular disease who presented with acute progressive right leg pain. Peripheral angiography showed complete thrombotic occlusion of his right superficial femoral artery. Thrombolysis was successfully performed using alteplase. His post-procedure angiography which was obtained the next day showed complete revascularization with no residual stenosis. His echocardiogram showed an ill-defined mass in the left ventricular apex. The absence of residual atheroma on peripheral angiography suggested a primary embolic event. We obtained cardiac MRI which showed mid-ventricular HCM complicated by an apical aneurysm and small thrombus. Left ventricular apical aneurysm occurs commonly in mid-ventricular HCM and is associated with a worse prognosis. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is superior to echocardiography in identifying left ventricular apical aneurysms and apical thrombi. J Med Cases. 2017;8(10):322-325 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc2915w

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Cases→Same topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies→French-language works237,207→