MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388682538 · doi:10.1186/s13256-023-04212-5

Cauda equina syndrome in a patient with human immunodeficiency virus and secondary central nervous system lymphoma: a case report

2023· review· en· W4388682538 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Hin Ning Tang, D Fonzo, Mohammed Redha, Michael Churchill-Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Case Reports · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)Cauda equina syndromeLymphomaCauda equinaPrimary central nervous system lymphomaSurgical oncologyPathologyImmunodeficiencyComplicationSurgeryImmunologySpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Secondary central nervous system lymphoma (SCNSL) is a known complication of immunocompromised patients with most cases involving the brain parenchyma. Reports of cauda equina syndrome (CES) caused by SCNSL are exceedingly scarce as involvement of this anatomical region is extremely uncommon. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of a 46-years-old, African, female patient with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) who developed CES in the context of SCNSL. There were no blasts present in the peripheral blood smear. We provide a review of the literature, discussion of the clinical evolution of this patient and the radiological/histopathological findings. The patient ultimately responded well to induction chemotherapy and high dose methotrexate. CONCLUSION: This case report demonstrates that CES, while a rare occurrence in this clinical context, should be considered in at-risk patients especially those presenting with abnormal neurological findings. Prompt recognition may prevent permanent neurological injury and obviate the need for more invasive therapeutic interventions.

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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Case ReportsSame topicCNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207