MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323927952 · doi:10.1016/j.ymgmr.2023.100961

Use of dexamethasone in acute rhabdomyolysis in LPIN1 deficiency

2023· article· en· W4323927952 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Yeganeh, Kaitlin March, Catherine Jones, Gloria Y. F. Ho, Kathryn Selby, Jean‐Pierre Chanoine, Sylvia Stöckler, Ramona Salvarinova, Gabriella Horváth, Catherine Brunel‐Guitton

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Genetics and Metabolism Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMuscle and Compartmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhabdomyolysisDexamethasoneMedicineAcute kidney injuryIntensive careInternal medicineEndocrinologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: LPIN1 deficiency is an autosomal recessive form of early childhood recurrent severe rhabdomyolysis. Although not completely lucid yet, LPIN1 has been shown to modulate endosomal-related pro-inflammatory responses via peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α (PPARα) and PPARγ coactivator 1α (PGC-1α). Treatment with anti-inflammatory agents such as dexamethasone has been proposed to improve the outcome. Case: . Despite optimal metabolic cares, the patient presented with an extremely high CK level where he benefited from intravenous dexamethasone (0.6 mg/Kg/day) for a period of 6 days. Results: Dexamethasone administration shortened the course of active rhabdomyolysis, intensive care admission and rehabilitation. It also prevented rhabdomyolysis-related complications such as kidney injury and compartment syndrome. Conclusion: Our patient showed a favorable response to parenteral dexamethasone, in addition to hyperhydration with IV fluids, sufficient calorie intake, and restricted dietary fat. The improvement with corticosteroids suggests an uncontrolled inflammatory response as the pathophysiology of LPIN1 deficiency.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Genetics and Metabolism ReportsSame topicMuscle and Compartmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207