MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413428175 · doi:10.14740/jmc5166

When the Tumor Leaves but the Damage Lingers: A Case of Delayed Cardiomyopathy Recovery Post-Paraganglioma Resection

2025· article· en· W4413428175 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Josephine Pitasari, Sajjad Gul, Jerry Kenmoe, Ahmad Munir

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdrenal and Paraganglionic Tumors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParagangliomaResectionCardiomyopathySurgeryInternal medicineHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Catecholamine-induced cardiomyopathy secondary to paraganglioma is a rare and potentially reversible condition. However, the course of recovery post-resection remains variable and may be delayed despite biochemical cure. We present the case of a 47-year-old male with biopsy-confirmed extra-adrenal paraganglioma who developed acute decompensated heart failure due to catecholamine-induced cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 30-35%) and multiorgan dysfunction. Despite successful surgical resection, his LVEF remained reduced postoperatively, and he was discharged on heart failure therapy and a wearable cardioverter defibrillator. A follow-up echocardiogram showed improvement in LVEF to 45% 2 weeks later, but his blood pressure remained poorly controlled despite adherence to a multi-drug regimen and lifestyle measures. He was readmitted with a transient ischemic attack (TIA) shortly after surgery. This case illustrates the variable recovery trajectory in paraganglioma-induced cardiomyopathy and highlights persistent cardiovascular risks, including resistant hypertension and cerebrovascular events despite biochemical cure. It emphasizes the importance of ongoing cardiac surveillance and multidisciplinary management, particularly in patients facing socioeconomic barriers to follow-up care.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 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 venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicAdrenal and Paraganglionic TumorsFrench-language works237,207