MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388951835

[A diabetic patient with a fulminant hand infection caused by a domestic rat bite].

2023· article· en· W4388951835 on OpenAlexaff
Bart C.J.M. de Vries, Bente P. van den Boom, Joris A. van Dongen, Brigitte E.P.A. van der Heijden, Ralph J. P. M. Franken

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsBarrie Urology GroupRoyal Victoria Regional Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFulminantMedicineDebridement (dental)AmputationDiabetes mellitusAnimal BitesAntibioticsDiseaseSurgeryIntensive care medicineInternal medicineBiologyEpidemiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Animal bite wounds are common and can cause serious hand infections. Risk factors not only include the oral flora of the animal and the anatomy of the teeth, but also the comorbidities of the bitten patient. CASE DESCRIPTION: In this case report we describe a 46-years old female patient with comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus type 2 and peripheral artery disease, suffering a fulminant hand infection after a domestic rat bite with the newly described bacterium Rodentibacterratti. Despite extensive antibiotic therapy and surgical debridement, a ray amputation was inevitable to maintain adequate hand function. CONCLUSION: Infections after animal bites may be caused by a variety of pathogens. The pathogen Rodentibacterratti has not previously been associated with infections in humans and future research is indicated to assess therapeutic strategies. Patients should be referred to a (plastic) surgeon if there is no clinical improvement within 48 hours of initiating antibiotic treatment.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207