MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412769600 · doi:10.1093/occmed/kqaf083

Occupational horizontal pushing inducing massive haemothorax: an unusual case report

2025· article· en· W4412769600 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Abrahim, B Abrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueOccupational Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsAthabasca UniversityMcMaster UniversityNiagara Health System
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThoracostomyMedicineHemothoraxOccupational safety and healthCoagulopathyPsychological interventionPoison controlMedical emergencySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report an unusual case of a 55-year-old male machine operator who developed a massive unilateral haemothorax and ipsilateral rib fracture following occupational horizontal pushing of a cold-rolled steel coil. Notably, this occurred in the absence of direct chest trauma, coagulopathy or underlying anatomical abnormalities. The patient fully recovered after timely tube thoracostomy and hospital monitoring. This case highlights the potential for severe occupational injuries resulting from horizontal pushing activities, which are often overlooked and underreported in injury statistics. To our knowledge, this is the first documented case of haemothorax induced by horizontal pushing, warranting further research to guide preventive safety measures and enhance the recognition and reporting of similar cases, thereby improving clinician awareness of indirect occupational trauma. It underscores the need for standardized force limits and ergonomic interventions to mitigate such risks and eventually eliminate manual handling of heavy machine components.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.333 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOccupational MedicineSame topicTrauma Management and DiagnosisFrench-language works237,207