MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281758456 · doi:10.14740/jmc3811

Iatrogenic Thoracic Duct Injury via the Right Internal Jugular Vein: A Case Report

2022· article· en· W4281758456 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hiroki Kono, Daiki Shako, Yoshimi Sato, Tatsuya Kawasaki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymph ductThoracic ductInternal jugular veinChylothoraxPneumothoraxSurgeryHemothoraxSubclavian veinJugular veinPericardial cavityCannulaAnatomyPericardiumLymph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thoracic duct injury is a rare mechanical complication during the insertion of a central venous cannula via the left internal jugular vein. We report a case of thoracic duct injury during the insertion of a temporary pacing lead via the right internal jugular vein. A 92-year-old woman presented with third-degree atrioventricular block. Temporary ventricular pacing was attempted via the right internal jugular venous route, but a guidewire and sheath migrated into the vessel structure that was not directly connected to the right ventricle. Considering the characteristics of the fluid obtained from the vessel and the anatomical components of the mediastinum, a diagnosis of thoracic duct injury was made. The system inserted incorrectly was removed and a pacing lead was placed in the right ventricular apex through the right internal jugular vein. Her clinical course was uneventful without developing pneumothorax, hemothorax, or chylothorax, and 5 days later, a permanent pacemaker was implanted via the left subclavian venous route.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0110.005
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.366 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207