MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388947660 · doi:10.14740/jmc4150

Percutaneous Intracardiac Mass Extraction in High Surgical-Risk Patients

2023· article· en· W4388947660 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mariam Riad, Mustafeez Ur Rahman, Rajasekhar Mulyala, Nadia Sayyed, Danielle Bayer, Bassam Omar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntracardiac injectionChillsSinus tachycardiaSurgeryPercutaneousTransthoracic echocardiogramCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large intracardiac masses including tumors, thrombi, and vegetations result in detrimental embolic or obstructive sequelae and present a management dilemma. Open heart surgery, the traditional approach, may not be an option for many patients with a prohibitive surgical risk due to multiple comorbidities. Recently, percutaneous options have emerged with reported success in extracting such intracardiac masses. A 42-year-old female with history of advanced primary sclerosing cholangitis with decompensated liver cirrhosis causing ascites and variceal bleed presented to the emergency department with fatigue, subjective fevers, chills and melena. Laboratory results revealed neutrophil-predominant leukocytosis and normocytic anemia, and blood cultures were positive for Candida albicans . Electrocardiography showed sinus tachycardia. Chest X-ray was unremarkable. She underwent packed red blood cell transfusion and esophageal banding for variceal bleeding. Transthoracic echocardiogram revealed normal left ventricular ejection fraction and no wall motion abnormalities. A right atrial mobile mass measuring approximately 1.0 × 3.0 cm was noted. Multidisciplinary heart team discussion concluded that while the mass posed a high embolic risk, the patient had a prohibitive risk for surgical intervention. Successful percutaneous removal of the mass using Penumbra system device (Penumbra Incorporated, Alameda, CA) was accomplished. This case report details the procedure and outcomes, as well as presents a literature review. J Med Cases. 2023;14(11):362-368 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc4150

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicInfective Endocarditis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207