MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327692847 · doi:10.7759/cureus.36313

Cardiothoracic Surgery Management of Giant Bullous Lung Disease Initially Misdiagnosed as Pneumothorax: A Case Report

2023· article· en· W4327692847 on OpenAlexaff
Xuanzhen Piao, Fadi Alyass, Arshad Yousuf

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPleural and Pulmonary Diseases
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePneumothoraxCOPDChronic coughEtiologyPresentation (obstetrics)LungSurgeryRare diseaseSubcutaneous emphysemaDiseaseDermatologyAsthmaPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Giant bullous emphysema, also known as "vanishing lung syndrome", is a rare manifestation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that is associated with high mortality. Cigarette smoking and alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (A1AD) are two main causes that result in permanent enlargement of airspaces, inefficient gas exchange, fibrosis of the airways, and collapse of the alveoli. A typical presentation can be found in a long-term smoker with dyspnea on exertion and progressive shortness of breath that may be associated with a productive cough. One of the clinical difficulties in diagnosing giant bullous emphysema is separating it from other etiologies like pneumothorax. It is paramount to differentiate giant bullous emphysema from pneumothorax as the management is completely different; both can, however, have similar clinical presentations and radiographic manifestations on initial assessment. In this report, we present the case of a 39-year-old African American male who presented with worsening shortness of breath and productive cough and was found to have bullous emphysema but was misdiagnosed and treated for pneumothorax in the initial encounter. The purpose of this case report is to raise awareness of this condition in the medical literature and discuss the similarity of bullous emphysema and pneumothorax in clinical presentation and radiographic findings, as well as the differences in treatment options.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicPleural and Pulmonary DiseasesFrench-language works237,207