MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309998934 · doi:10.14740/jmc4018

An Unusual Etiology: Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Resulting in Transient Apical Ballooning Syndrome

2022· article· en· W4309998934 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Steven Imburgio, Anmol Johal, Ndausung Udongwo, Sherif Eltawansy, Vandan Upadhyaya, Mohammad Raza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTakotsubo Cardiomyopathy and Associated Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSubarachnoid hemorrhageCardiomyopathyEtiologyMyocardial infarctionPathophysiologyCardiologyVentricleDifferential diagnosisInternal medicineAnesthesiaHeart failurePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intracranial bleeds, such as subarachnoid hemorrhage, carry high morbidity and mortality rates. Often intracranial hemorrhages result in debilitating residual neurological symptoms but can be so extensive that cardiac complications can also be seen. We present a rare case of a patient who was found to have a subarachnoid hemorrhage that incited the development of Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, which subsequently progressed to an acute myocardial infarction. The aim of this case report is to explore the underlying pathophysiology of how cerebral hemorrhage can result in apical ballooning of the left ventricle through various mechanisms including sympathetic-induced surge in catecholamines and neurogenic damage to the myocardium. We also intend to highlight the importance for clinicians to consider brain bleeds in the differential diagnosis when a patient presents with an acute myocardial infarction as treatment with heparin is generally contraindicated.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.295
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicTakotsubo Cardiomyopathy and Associated PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207