MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404944280 · doi:10.14740/cr1738

The Mechanism and Management of Pneumopericardium Caused by Right Ventricular Lead Perforation

2024· article· en· W4404944280 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tomo Komaki, Noriyuki Mohri, Akihito Ideishi, Kohei Tashiro, Shin-ichiro Miura, Masahiro Ogawa

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumothorax, Barotrauma, Emphysema
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePneumopericardiumVentricleSurgeryPerforationPneumothoraxAtrioventricular blockFluoroscopyChest tubeCardiac tamponadeLead (geology)HydrothoraxCardiologyPericardiocentesisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An 83-year-old man underwent dual-chamber pacemaker placement for complete atrioventricular block at another hospital. The active-fixation ventricular lead was positioned on the free wall of the anterior right ventricle. Ventricular pacing failure occurred on the day after pacemaker implantation, and fluoroscopy revealed right ventricular (RV) lead perforation. The patient was transferred to our hospital, and chest computed tomography revealed a severe pneumothorax and moderate pneumopericardium. These symptoms were relieved after chest tube drainage, and the patient's hemodynamics stabilized. The RV lead was percutaneously removed using simple traction under fluoroscopic guidance with cardiac surgical backup and was uneventfully refixed to the RV septum. Although there have been several reports of pneumopericardium caused by atrial lead perforation, there are very few cases related to RV lead. Pneumopericardium complicated by pneumothorax due to RV lead perforation can be relieved using chest tube drainage without the need for pericardiocentesis.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.322 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicPneumothorax, Barotrauma, EmphysemaFrench-language works237,207