MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288073552 · doi:10.1097/crd.0000000000000373

Eosinophilic Myocarditis: When Allergies Attack the Heart!

2021· article· en· W4288073552 on OpenAlexaff
Vardhmaan Jain, Agam Bansal, Devika Aggarwal, Michael Chetrit, Manasvi Gupta, Kirtipal Bhatia, Samarthkumar Thakkar, Rajkumar Doshi, Raktim K. Ghosh, Dhrubajyoti Bandopadhyay, Benico Barzilai, Carolyn J Shiau, William H. Frishman, Wilbert S. Aronow

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology in Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEosinophilic Disorders and Syndromes
Canadian institutionsRoyal Columbian Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocarditisEosinophiliaHypereosinophilic syndromeFulminantSubclinical infectionImmunosuppressionEosinophilicMyeloidPathologyImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eosinophilic myocarditis is a clinical condition whereby myocardial injury is mediated by eosinophilic infiltration. A number of underlying causes, including reactive, clonal, or idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome, may trigger eosinophilia. Disease presentation may vary from mild subclinical variants to fulminant myocarditis with thromboembolic complications, and in some cases, endomyocardial and valvular fibrosis may be seen. A detailed examination coupled with the use of multimodality imaging, and endomyocardial biopsy may help establish diagnosis. Treatment is aimed at symptomatic management and treating the underlying cause of eosinophilia, such as withdrawal of implicated drugs, antihelminthic therapy for infection, immunosuppression for autoimmune conditions, and targeted therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in cases with clonal myeloid disorders.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology in ReviewSame topicEosinophilic Disorders and SyndromesFrench-language works237,207