MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404201671 · doi:10.7759/cureus.73342

Black Widow Spider Envenomation and Cardiovascular Complications

2024· review· en· W4404201671 on OpenAlexaff
Parmjot Khakh, William Q Lavercombe, Juan Farina, Gabriel M. Aisenberg, Adrián Baranchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVenomous Animal Envenomation and Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnvenomationPathognomonicInternal medicineCardiologyEjection fractionSupraventricular tachycardiaAntivenomElectrocardiographyTachycardiaHeart failureDiseaseVenom

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Envenomation (latrodectism) with black widow spider (BWS) venom can cause dysfunction in the cardiovascular system. The pathophysiology and consequences of cardiovascular effects have not been fully elucidated. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Of 364 initial results, 22 articles (20 case reports and two case series) were used with 25 patients in total. Seventeen (68%) patients had hypertension, and 16 (64%) had tachycardia. High troponin levels were found in 16 (64%) patients. Electrocardiographic changes consisted of nine (36%) patients with ST-T segment abnormalities and three (12%) patients with supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Wall motion abnormalities were present in 11 (44%) patients, with three of the patients experiencing left ventricle global hypokinesis. A reduced ejection fraction was present in 10 (40%) patients. Only six (24%) patients received antivenom and were discharged with no further complications. In conclusion, raising awareness for cardiovascular complications could be useful as there are no pathognomonic features in imaging or electrocardiogram (ECG). The impact of antivenom on cardiovascular complications has not been prospectively studied.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicVenomous Animal Envenomation and StudiesFrench-language works237,207