MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415420827 · doi:10.7759/cureus.95126

Vomiting Blood, Missing the Heart: A Rare Presentation of Acute Myocardial Infarction

2025· article· en· W4415420827 on OpenAlexaff
Samir Al-Bulushi, Nina Farazan, Yasmeen AlHarmali, Ahmadreza Bagheri

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPotassium and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyocardial infarctionVomitingAcute coronary syndromePercutaneous coronary interventionEmergency departmentDifferential diagnosisPresentation (obstetrics)Troponin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hematemesis, the vomiting of blood, is an uncommon initial manifestation of myocardial infarction (MI). We describe a case involving the clinical progression of a 46-year-old man who arrived at the emergency department with symptoms including active coffee ground vomitus and severe epigastric pain. While acute coronary syndrome (ACS) typically manifests with chest pain, this case highlights the significance of considering MI even in the absence of this hallmark symptom. The patient's symptoms initially raised suspicion of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, given the patient's cardiovascular risk factors, acute MI (AMI) was considered, confirmed by abnormal ECG and elevated troponin levels. The patient received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and was discharged with dual antiplatelet therapy. The case stresses the necessity of a comprehensive differential diagnosis when assessing patients with symptoms similar to gastrointestinal bleeding, as timely recognition of atypical presentations of MI is crucial for favorable outcomes. This report aims to raise awareness of the importance of comprehensive evaluation and tailored management strategies for atypical presentations of ACS. Further research is needed to guide optimal approaches in these challenging scenarios.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designObservational
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 venueCureusSame topicPotassium and Related DisordersFrench-language works237,207