MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389104464 · doi:10.1093/ehjcr/ytad602

Recurrent giant cell myocarditis following orthotopic heart transplant resulting in urgent redo orthotopic heart transplantation: a case report

2023· article· en· W4389104464 on OpenAlexaff
Abdullah AlJohani, Joshua J. Solomon, Abdulaziz Joury, Renzo Cecere, Nadia Giannetti

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Case Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Immunology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiogenic shockMedicineHeart failureMyocarditisHeart transplantationCardiologyEjection fractionShock (circulatory)ImmunosuppressionInternal medicineTransplantationCirculatory systemSurgeryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Giant cell myocarditis (GCM) is a severe and rapidly progressing condition that can lead to end-stage heart failure. We present a case of a 51-year-old male with a history of orthotopic heart transplantation (OHTx) for GCM, who experienced recurrent GCM in the allograft, leading to progressive heart failure and the need for a second heart transplant. Case summary: A 51-year-old male with a history of OHTx for GCM presented with rapidly worsening heart failure symptoms. Despite initial stability, he deteriorated to cardiogenic shock and required intensive support. His clinical course was complicated by recurrent COVID-19 infections, worsened left ventricular ejection fraction, and withdrawal of guideline-directed medical therapy. Imaging showed extensive scar burden, and subsequent investigations ruled out coronary artery disease. With declining functional status and worsening cardiogenic shock, he was re-listed for OHTx and successfully underwent a second heart transplant. Discussion: Giant cell myocarditis poses challenges due to its aggressive nature. Early, aggressive immunosuppression and mechanical circulatory support are crucial. The recurrence rate of GCM post-OHTx is notable, often within the first year, and the optimal immunosuppressive regimen remains uncertain. In this case, GCM recurrence following OHTx led to continued deterioration despite treatment, necessitating a second heart transplant. This unique case emphasizes the complexity of managing recurrent GCM post-OHTx.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal - Case ReportsSame topicViral Infections and Immunology ResearchFrench-language works237,207