GPT4 Helps My "Summarize Everything" Video

I did a one-minute video about my favorite Chrome plug-in, SUMMARIZE EVERYTHING, which gives a mini  summary of any web article at the tap of a button.   I tentatively titled it,  SUMMARIZE EVERYTHING, A GREAT LITTLE A.I. APP.    I gave GPT4 the script and asked for more titles.  See some exchanges below.  Then, I gave GPT4 the script again, and asked for any edits and improvements.

###

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWPJvXvKNOo

###

GPT4 Offers Possible Titles

1. "Unlocking Information Overload with Summarize Everything"
2. "Effortless Webpage Summaries: Discover Summarize Everything"
3. "Streamline Your Research with Summarize Everything"
4. "A.I. Simplifies Research: An Introduction to Summarize Everything"
5. "Summarize Everything: Revolutionizing Web Browsing"
6. "Take Note of This: Summarize Everything + OneNote"
7. "Maximize Your Reading with Summarize Everything: A Brief Intro"
8. "Digest More in Less Time with Summarize Everything"
9. "How Summarize Everything Changed My Reading Routine"
10. "Power of Summarization: Explore Summarize Everything"
11. "Life Hack: Summarize Everything for Effective Information Gathering"
12. "Mastering Efficient Web Research with Summarize Everything"
13. "Harness AI for Better Reading with Summarize Everything"
14. "Get the Gist of Any Article: Summarize Everything in Action"
15. "Optimize Your Web Reading with Summarize Everything"

 

I dislike #4 (too long and dull) and kind of like #10 with the novel phrase, "power of summarization".   Can you try some more than are clever or snappier.  I appreciate your help.

ChatGPT

Absolutely, I'd be happy to provide more suggestions. Let's try for some more catchy and vibrant titles:

1. "Summarize Everything: Brevity at Its Best"
2. "Saving Time, One Summary at a Time: Summarize Everything"
3. "The Art of Condensing Web Content: Summarize Everything"
4. "Get the Lowdown Fast with Summarize Everything"
5. "Time to Summarize! Everything You Need, Quicker"
6. "Cut to the Chase: Summarize Everything in a Click"
7. "The Web in a Nutshell: Summarize Everything in Action"
8. "Skim Smarter, Not Harder with Summarize Everything"
9. "Every Word Counts: Get More with Summarize Everything"
10. "Speed Reading Redefined: Meet Summarize Everything"
11. "Power to Summarize: Unleashing the Potential of Summarize Everything"
12. "Say More with Less: Dive into Summarize Everything"
13. "Tap, Summarize, Repeat: The Magic of Summarize Everything"
14. "Don't Miss the Highlights: Discover Summarize Everything"
15. "The Skinny on Summarize Everything: Info at Warp Speed"

User

#13 is fun.   Those were better!

ChatGPT

I'm glad you liked them! "Tap, Summarize, Repeat: The Magic of Summarize Everything" indeed has a fun and dynamic rhythm to it, perfect for grabbing viewers' attention. If you need more assistance or creative input, feel free to ask. Good luck with your video!

Note - I ended up with "Tap, Shrink: The Magical Summarize Everything App" as a title.

####

HERE IS A "SUMMARIZE EVERYTHING" SUMMARY 

OF ITS OWN VIDEO! Hah!

Summary

The video discusses a software app called "Summarize Everything" that the speaker has been using frequently for weeks. They provide links to the website, Chrome Store page, and an article about the app. The app allows users to generate GPT summaries and bullet points of web pages. The speaker personally uses it to save articles into Microsoft OneNote by summarizing them and pasting the summary at the top of the clipped article.

Facts

💻 The speaker recommends the software app "Summarize Everything."

🌐 The app has a website that serves as a placeholder.

⭐ The Chrome Store page of the app has a perfect rating and over forty thousand users.

📝 The app provides GPT summaries and bullet points of web pages.

📚 The speaker saves 100 or 200 articles into Microsoft OneNote monthly.

📑 When saving an article into OneNote, the speaker taps the summarize button in the app and copies the summary.

📋 The summary is pasted at the top of the OneNote article while clipping it. 

####

The above Summary must be taken from Summarize Everything being able to find the YouTube auto transcript of my voice, on the video page.

####

I'm pretty happy with this script, but I am happy to consider any improvements or edits you may have.  I want the video to remain short and brisk, giving the reader enough to understand what the app does, and then wrap up. //

I try a lot of software apps and plugs for a day,

and then they're forgotten.

Here's one I love.  I've been using several times a day,

for weeks.  It's called, SUMMARIZE EVERYTHING.

Here's the website, which is just a placeholder.

Here's the Chrome Store Page.  

It has a perfect rating

and over 40,000 users.

Here's an article about it at Medium.  

And for all these pages, 

I include the links below.

here's how it works.  You tap on the green button,

and you get a GPT summary and bullet points.  

So that's already good.  But here's how I really use it.

Every month, I save

100 or 200 articles into Microsoft ONENOTE, 

from business magazines and

medical journals.  

When I'm going to save an article into ONE NOTE,

I tap the Summarize button, copy the summary, 

paste the summary at the top of the One Note as I'm

clipping it.

Here's the result in One note.  The summary

is at the top, and the whole article is below.

Love it.  Thanks for watching.

END

ChatGPT

Your script is already concise and informative. Here are a few tweaks for additional clarity and impact:

"Every day, I give numerous software apps and plugins a whirl, and most are soon forgotten. But not this one."

"I've been using SUMMARIZE EVERYTHING multiple times a day, for weeks now, and it's become indispensable."

"Here's the Chrome Store Page - it's not just me who's impressed, this tool boasts a perfect rating and over 40,000 users."

"Here's how it works: Simply tap on the green button, and voila! You're presented with an AI-generated summary and a list of key bullet points."

"But let me show you how it really shines in my daily routine."

"Every month, I save around 100 to 200 articles from business magazines and medical journals into Microsoft OneNote."

"Before saving an article into OneNote, I tap the Summarize button, copy the neat summary it gives me, and paste it at the top of my OneNote clipping."

"Here's the end result in OneNote. The distilled summary sits at the top, with the full article comfortably nestled below."

"It's a real game-changer. Love it, and I think you will too. Thanks for watching."

These minor edits aim to add more active language and a touch more enthusiasm to really draw in your audience. But overall, your script does an excellent job of demonstrating the value of the Summarize Everything tool.

Could you understand what the app does?

ChatGPT

Yes, absolutely. The app, SUMMARIZE EVERYTHING, appears to be a Google Chrome extension that uses artificial intelligence (AI) technology, more specifically OpenAI's GPT, to generate a brief summary and a list of bullet-point takeaways from any webpage, be it an article, a blog post, or a report.

From your script, it's clear that this tool can be a real asset for anyone who frequently reads or saves articles, particularly if they want to quickly grasp the key points without having to read the entire text. You have explained that when you save articles to OneNote, you use this tool to generate a summary, which you then place at the top of the full article for quick and easy reference later.

It's a great way to condense information and make research or reading more efficient.

User

What is the difference between an app, an extension, and a plug-in, in this context?  I tend to think of these little buttons like Summarize Everything as being "plug ins" but the professional term seems to be "extension"?   Are they synonyms?

ChatGPT

 In the context of web browsers, such as Google Chrome, the terms "extension" and "plug-in" are often used interchangeably, but they do have some technical differences:

Browser Extensions: These are small software modules that add a specific feature or functionality to a web browser. They are typically written using HTML, JavaScript, and CSS. They can change the user interface of the web browser without directly affecting viewable content of a web page. Extensions can interact with web pages or servers to provide a specific functionality, such as blocking ads, filling out forms, remembering passwords, and yes, summarizing web content.

Browser Plug-ins: Plug-ins are a type of software component that adds a specific feature to an existing software application. In the context of web browsers, plug-ins are used to display content that the browser itself can't display by default. Examples include Adobe Flash Player or Java plug-ins that you may need to view certain types of multimedia content. Plug-ins are being phased out in favor of HTML5 and browser extensions because they can pose security risks.

App: In general, an app (short for "application") is a type of software that allows you to perform specific tasks. Applications for desktop or laptop computers are sometimes called desktop applications, while those for mobile devices are called mobile apps. When you're talking about a web app, it's software that you use on the Internet with a web browser.

In the context of your "Summarize Everything" tool, the correct term would be a "browser extension" because it adds specific functionality to your web browser (Chrome in this case) and interacts with the content of the web pages you visit. It's also worth noting that most modern browsers use the term "extensions" for both what used to be called plug-ins and extensions.

In everyday conversation, these terms are often used interchangeably and it’s likely people will understand what you're referring to regardless of the term you use. But when writing or speaking in a more technical context, it’s useful to know the distinctions.

User

Aha.   I remember the term plug-in from things like java or Adobe Flash from decades ago!

ChatGPT

Exactly! "Plug-in" was a term frequently used to describe components like Java or Adobe Flash that you could add to your web browser to enable it to handle specific types of content that it wouldn't otherwise be able to handle. However, many of these older plug-ins posed security risks and have been phased out in favor of safer, more secure technologies.

Today, most web content that used to require plug-ins can be handled using native web technologies such as HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript. Additionally, modern browsers have expanded their functionality with the use of extensions, which add capabilities to the browser itself, like ad blocking, password management, and in your case, summarizing web content.

It's great to hear you found this information helpful! 

If you have more questions, feel free to ask

Should Cancers Nomenclature Mirror Embryology, or is that 1880 Thinking?

 You’ve said that various leukemias are related to earlier or later stages of B cells.  

Is this a theory that cancers like leukemias recapitulate embryology?  Are there debates or pro’s and con’s to that view?  I thought cancers were caused by a translocation, fusion, or oncogene.

ChatGPT

It's true that leukemias and lymphomas often resemble cells at different stages of B or T cell development, and this is a well-recognized concept in the field of hematology and oncology. This observation is not so much a recapitulation of embryology, as it is a reflection of the cell of origin of the cancer. The type of leukemia or lymphoma often reflects the stage at which a normal cell acquired a critical mutation and began its uncontrolled growth.

The concept of cancers "recapitulating embryology" is more about the idea that cancers can gain characteristics of more "primitive" cells - for instance, they may gain the ability to proliferate indefinitely, escape normal growth controls, and invade surrounding tissues, much like embryonic cells. However, it's important to clarify that cancer cells do not actually become embryonic cells, but rather gain some properties of these cells due to mutations.

In terms of the cause of cancers, it's true that translocations, fusions, or oncogenes can contribute to the development of cancer. However, these are not the only factors. Cancers, including leukemias and lymphomas, are usually the result of an accumulation of several genetic changes over time. These changes can include point mutations, deletions, amplifications, translocations, and other forms of genomic instability.

Furthermore, not all cancers are driven by the same types of genetic alterations. For instance, some leukemias are characterized by specific chromosomal translocations (like the BCR-ABL fusion in chronic myeloid leukemia), while others may be driven by point mutations in specific oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes. It's also important to note that these genetic changes alone are often not sufficient to cause cancer, and other factors like the cellular and tissue microenvironment, immune system interactions, and lifestyle factors can also play a role.

 

There’s a brain tumor neuroblastoma and a glioblastoma, invoking neuroblasts and glioblasts.

ChatGPT

Yes, you're correct. Neuroblastoma and glioblastoma are types of brain tumors named after the types of cells from which they are believed to originate.

Neuroblastoma: This is a type of cancer that most often affects children, usually under the age of 5. The term "neuroblastoma" comes from "neuro" (referring to nerves) and "blastoma" (indicating immature cells). It originates in neuroblasts, which are immature nerve cells present during fetal development. These cells usually mature into functioning nerve cells, but in neuroblastoma, they become cancerous. The most common location for neuroblastoma is the adrenal glands, but it can also develop along the spine, chest, abdomen, or pelvis—anywhere along the sympathetic nervous system.

Glioblastoma: This is a very aggressive type of cancer that can occur in the brain or spinal cord. Glioblastoma forms from cells called astrocytes that support nerve cells. The term "glioblastoma" comes from "glia" (referring to the glue-like function of astrocytes) and "blastoma" (referring to immature cells). This type of tumor is most common in adults and is known for its fast growth rate due to a rich supply of blood vessels in the brain. It's also highly resistant to conventional therapies, which makes its prognosis quite poor.

In both cases, the names of the cancers reflect the type of cells that they originate from (or closely resemble), rather than the cells they mature into. So, the "blastoma" in both names refers to the immature or precursor nature of the cells that give rise to these cancers. This reflects the idea that cancers often resemble (and are named after) the cell of origin, rather than the mature cell type that they may otherwise have developed into.

User

Could a respected cancer scientist argue that such terms are leftovers from the 1880’s and not really helpful for 21st century medical therapy ?

ChatGPT

2 / 2

Yes, a respected cancer scientist could argue that terms like "neuroblastoma" and "glioblastoma" are somewhat outdated and may not fully capture the complexity and diversity of these tumors in the context of 21st-century medical therapy. With advancements in molecular biology, genomics, and personalized medicine, our understanding of cancer has evolved significantly since the 19th century.

In recent years, researchers have discovered that cancers with similar histological appearances (i.e., what they look like under the microscope) can have vastly different molecular profiles, which can influence their response to treatment and prognosis. As a result, the classification of cancers based solely on their cell of origin or microscopic appearance may not provide enough information for optimal patient management.

For example, glioblastomas are now known to have different molecular subtypes, such as those with IDH1/2 mutations and those without. These molecular subtypes have different prognoses and may require different treatment strategies. A more modern classification system could incorporate molecular information to better guide treatment decisions.

It's worth noting that the World Health Organization (WHO) updates its classification of tumors (including brain tumors) periodically to reflect advances in our understanding of cancer biology. The most recent edition (the 5th edition, published in 2021) incorporates molecular information alongside histological features to classify tumors more accurately.

While the traditional terms like "neuroblastoma" and "glioblastoma" are still in use, they are increasingly being supplemented by additional molecular information to ensure that patients receive the most appropriate and effective treatment. The field of oncology continues to evolve, and it is likely that the terminology and classification systems will be updated and refined as new discoveries are made.

##

I have a book about brain tumor classification from the 1920s.  There have been huge changes, including by the 1990s when I was in training.   A few terms are carried forward, but the meaning of the term may have changed a great deal.  In other cases, 1920s terms have fallen into disuse, yet the cancers the term referred to must still exist.   It would be interesting for someone to study the changes in tumor nomenclature decade by decade 1880s to 1980s.   

(FERGUSON in 2005 wrote about BAILEY and his era - 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15844870/)

ChatGPT

Your observation is spot on. The evolution of medical terminology, particularly in the field of oncology, reflects the advancement in our understanding of diseases. It would indeed be a fascinating study to trace how the nomenclature of tumors has changed over the decades.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, tumors were generally named based on their appearance under a microscope, relating to the type of cell or tissue they seemed to resemble. As you mentioned, many of these terms are still in use today, although their precise definitions may have evolved or even shifted substantially as our understanding of cancer biology has progressed.

With the advent of molecular biology and genetics in the latter half of the 20th century, researchers started to realize that cancers with similar histological appearances could have very different behaviors and responses to treatment due to underlying genetic differences. This has led to the incorporation of molecular and genetic information into cancer classification, a trend that continues in the current era of precision medicine.

Studying the changes in tumor nomenclature over time would provide interesting insights into the history of oncology and the progression of scientific knowledge. It could also reveal trends and shifts in research focus, as well as highlight the influence of technology on the field. Such a study would not only be of historical interest but could also inform the development of future classification systems and the direction of cancer research.

User

It would also humble us that whatever terms and ideas we use today, in 40 years they will be antique-sounding.

ChatGPT

Absolutely, the rapid pace of scientific and medical research means that our current understanding and terminology will almost certainly evolve and may indeed seem outdated in a few decades. This perspective emphasizes the continuous nature of scientific discovery and medical progress.

In fact, this continual evolution is one of the great strengths of science. As we gather new data, refine our methodologies, and develop new technologies, we are able to reassess and refine our theories, models, and classifications to improve our understanding of the world, including complex diseases like cancer.

However, while the specifics may change, the core principles and objectives of medicine—to reduce suffering, to treat disease, and to improve quality of life—remain constant. So even as we look forward to future advancements, we can also appreciate the knowledge and tools we have today, recognizing that they represent the current state of a long and ongoing journey of discovery and improvement.

##

I was thinking of an old book, I think 1920s, by Percival Bailey.  I found a biographical article about him,  Neurosurg Focus . 2005 Apr 15;18(4):e7. doi: 10.3171/foc.2005.18.4.8.

Percival Bailey and the classification of brain tumors

Sherise Ferguson 1, Maciej S Lesniak

Affiliations expand

PMID: 15844870 DOI: 10.3171/foc.2005.18.4.8

Abstract

Throughout his illustrious career, Percival Bailey made numerous contributions to the fields of neurology, neuroanatomy, psychiatry, neuropathology, and, of course, neurosurgery. His expertise, his curiosity about the nervous system, and his desire to examine it from all angles were unique. With the exception of Harvey Cushing, Dr. Bailey made some of the greatest contributions in the area of neuro-oncology at the turn of the last century. In this essay the authors summarize the key episodes of Bailey's life and discuss his impact on the classification and treatment of human brain tumors.

##

ChatGPT

Dr. Percival Bailey (1892–1973) was indeed a significant figure in the history of neuro-oncology. Alongside Dr. Harvey Cushing, he was instrumental in the development of a classification system for brain tumors.

Bailey and Cushing's classification system, first published in 1926, was based on the idea that brain tumors could be classified according to the cell type they most closely resembled, under the assumption that this was their cell of origin. This idea was groundbreaking at the time and formed the basis of our understanding of brain tumors for many years.

Bailey's work extended beyond classification, and he was also noted for his surgical techniques and for his exploration of the relationship between brain structure and behavior. However, his contributions to the classification of brain tumors remain perhaps his most enduring legacy in the field of neuro-oncology.

As our understanding of brain tumors has advanced, the classification system has been revised and updated, with molecular markers now playing a significant role in tumor classification. Despite these changes, the work of Bailey and Cushing remains foundational to our understanding of brain tumors.

Your interest in this historical aspect of neuro-oncology seems quite keen. The study of how such classifications have evolved over the years can provide us valuable insights into the progress of medical science and might even guide future research and therapeutic strategies.

GPT4 Critiques Medical Letter against UHC Prior Auth for Colonoscopies.

As discussed in several current articles, physician associations are concerned about new prior auth rules for colonoscopies and write the insurer a letter.

http://www.discoveriesinhealthpolicy.com/2023/05/united-healthcare-stat-says-colonoscopy.html

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payers/unitedhealthcares-prior-authorization-policy-colonoscopies-draws-more-fire?itm_source=parsely-api

Letter PDF:  https://www.statnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Multi-organizational-letter-to-UHC-re-GI-endoscopy-prior-auth-program_05082023.pdf

I asked GPT4 to summarize the letter, critique the letter, and offer improvements.

Summary of the Letter

The letter from the medical associations criticizes United Healthcare's new prior authorization program for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, including colonoscopies. They argue that it will harm patients, limit access to care for vulnerable populations, delay colorectal cancer diagnosis in younger populations, and unnecessarily increase the burden on physicians and their practice.

The associations highlight several areas of concern:

1. Impact on patients: The policy could deter patients from undergoing medically recommended colonoscopies after polyps or cancers are removed or for diagnostic testing. The requirement for prior authorization could lead to treatment abandonment, with 80% of physicians reporting such outcomes due to the process.

2. Delay in care for high-risk individuals: The policy could cause delays in care for high-risk individuals, as it requires prior authorization even for patients deemed high-risk for colorectal cancer by a physician.

3. Unintended limitation of screening colonoscopies: Despite the claim that screening colonoscopies are exempt, there is confusion due to lack of explicit coding instructions, potentially resulting in the need for prior authorization.

4. Increased burden on physicians: The policy is likely to increase the administrative burden on physicians, who already complete an average of 45 prior authorizations per week per physician.

5. Lack of overutilization evidence: The associations challenge the need for the policy by questioning the evidence of overutilization, as UHC has not provided data to support this.

6. Focus on cost control over patient care: The policy is criticized for seemingly prioritizing cost control over improving patient care.

Critique of the Letter

While the letter raises several valid concerns, it could be improved in several ways:

1. Lack of data and evidence: The letter could be strengthened by including more data and empirical evidence to support its claims. For instance, data showing the number of patients who could be affected by this policy or specific examples where similar policies have led to negative outcomes could be useful.

2. Lack of proposed solutions: The letter is largely focused on criticizing the policy but doesn't offer concrete alternatives or solutions. Offering a well thought out alternative could make the letter more persuasive.

3. Overgeneralization of the problem: The letter assumes that all endoscopic procedures will be affected equally by this policy. However, it does not take into account the possibility that UHC might be more flexible for certain procedures or patient types.

4. Arguments based on anecdotes: Some of the arguments, such as the increase in physicians' burdens, are presented as anecdotal evidence. Including more comprehensive data or peer-reviewed studies could strengthen these claims.

5. Assumptions about motives: The letter assumes that UHC's primary motive is cost control. While this might be true, it could be more constructive to engage with the possibility that UHC has valid reasons for implementing this policy, such as preventing unnecessary procedures or improving overall patient care.

How to Improve the Letter

1. Include more data and evidence: The letter could include more specific data and research to back up its claims.

2. Propose alternatives: The letter could suggest alternative measures that UHC could take to control costs or prevent overutilization, without impacting patient care negatively.

3. Consider UHC's perspective: The letter could engage more directly with UHC's stated reasons for implementing the policy, offering a more balanced critique.

4. Specify the impact on different procedures: The letter could provide more detail on how the policy might affect different types of procedures and patients, rather than treating all endoscopic procedures as a monolith.

5. Offer to collaborate: The letter could propose a collaboration between the medical associations and UHC to find a solution that balances the needs of both parties.

###

GPT4 also rewrote the letter, shortening it considerably:

Dear United Healthcare Leadership,

We write on behalf of various medical associations to express our concerns regarding the newly instituted policy of requiring prior authorization for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures, including colonoscopies. While we understand the necessity to ensure appropriate utilization of healthcare resources, we are deeply concerned about the unintended consequences of this policy, particularly regarding its potential impact on patient care and physician workload.

Patient Care and Delays in Diagnosis

The National Cancer Institute highlights that colorectal cancer is a prominent cause of cancer death among Americans under 50, with the incidence rate still rising. We are worried that the new prior authorization policy, albeit excluding screening colonoscopies, might unintentionally discourage patients from undergoing vital subsequent colonoscopies following the removal of polyps or cancers, or when diagnostic testing is warranted due to alarming symptoms.

The Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) identifies 'high-risk' individuals through clinical expertise. If a patient is deemed high-risk for colorectal cancer by a medical provider, they are entitled to receive services in accordance with the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, without cost-sharing. However, under the new policy, these high-risk patients would need to wait for approval via the prior authorization process before receiving essential care.

Coding and Scope of Prior Authorization

We acknowledge that the policy intends to exclude screening colonoscopies. However, the absence of clear coding instructions could lead to confusion and may inadvertently necessitate prior authorization for these procedures. We recommend that UHC provide explicit coding instructions and allocate adequate time for physician education to prevent this ambiguity.

Physician Workload and Overutilization Concerns

The policy, as it stands, is likely to increase the administrative burden on physicians. We would like to highlight a study by the American Medical Association which suggests that the average practice completes 45 prior authorizations per week per physician, equating to 14 hours of paperwork weekly. The introduction of further administrative requirements could detract from patient care.

Our understanding is that the policy was developed to curb overutilization. However, we have not seen evidence from UHC to substantiate the overutilization of any GI endoscopic or capsule endoscopy procedure. We recommend a collaborative review of procedure utilization data to identify specific procedures of concern and develop educational initiatives for appropriate utilization.

Balancing Cost Control and Patient Care

We recognize the importance of managing healthcare costs, but it is crucial to balance this with the imperative of delivering quality patient care. We believe that broad limitations on care might not be the optimal solution. We suggest a more nuanced approach, focusing on specific procedures where overutilization is demonstrable and cost savings can be achieved without compromising patient care.

In summary, while we appreciate UHC's efforts to optimize resources and ensure quality care, we are concerned about the possible unintended consequences of the current prior authorization policy. We suggest a collaborative effort between UHC and the medical associations to review the policy and develop a solution that balances cost control, appropriate procedure utilization, and, most importantly, quality patient care.

We look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue on this issue.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name] [Your Position] [Your Contact Information]

NEJM 65 Female

 https://www.nejm.org/doi/story/10.1056/feature.2022.02.21.100090

A 65-Year-Old Woman with Depression, Recurrent Falls, and Inability to Care for Herself

Case

The case description for a Case Records of the Massachusetts General Hospital appears below. What is the diagnosis? What diagnostic test is most likely to be helpful? Cast your vote on the diagnosis and submit a comment about what diagnostic test is indicated. The correct diagnosis, along with the full description of the case and the procedures performed, has been published in the March 10, 2022, issue of the Journal.

A 65-year-old woman with depression presented with worsening neuropsychiatric symptoms, weight loss, unsteady gait, recurrent falls, and progression of weakness on the left side for several months.

Polling and commenting are now closed. Read the complete case. See more Case Challenges.

78 Comments

 Poll

Presentation of Case

 

Diana L. Stern (Psychiatry): A 65-year-old woman was admitted to this hospital because of depression, recurrent falls, and difficulty caring for herself.

Four years before the current admission, the patient received a diagnosis of depression that was precipitated by psychosocial stressors. She was treated with bupropion, citalopram, and cognitive behavioral therapy. The depression was well controlled until 1 year before the current admission, when she began to have anhedonia, decreased energy, sadness, and poor concentration. She resumed cognitive behavioral therapy, but her symptoms worsened during the next 4 months, and she had suicidal ideation. The dose of bupropion was increased, and treatment with trazodone was started.

Fourteen weeks before the current admission, the patient was in a motor vehicle accident that was attributed to her falling asleep while driving. After the accident, she reported increased sadness, low energy, and inability to perform her usual activities. One week later, she fell and struck her head, and she was evaluated in the emergency department of this hospital. She reported that, before her fall, she had been feeling unsteady because of weakness in the left leg. A physical examination was normal. Computed tomography (CT) of the head, performed without the administration of intravenous contrast material, revealed hypodensities involving the subcortical and periventricular white matter, findings consistent with chronic small-vessel disease. The patient was referred to the neurology clinic of this hospital and was discharged home.

During the next week, the patient had balance difficulties and began using a walker. When she was evaluated in the neurology clinic, she reported imbalance and occasional nausea. On examination, she had a depressed affect. Strength was assessed as 5−/5 in the proximal and distal muscles of the arms and legs. Reflexes were 1+ and symmetric at the biceps, triceps, and patellar tendons and were absent at the ankles, with downgoing toes. The gait was wide-based and unsteady, with mild dragging of the left leg. A diagnosis of postconcussive syndrome was considered, and treatment with ondansetron was started for nausea. Additional tests were performed.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head, performed after the administration of intravenous contrast material, revealed increased signal intensity in the pons and in a periventricular distribution on T2-weighted imaging, without associated contrast enhancement. There was a region of decreased signal intensity in the right corona radiata on a map of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Results of electroencephalography were normal, as were results of electromyography and nerve-conduction studies of the left leg. Physical therapy was recommended, and repeat MRI was planned for 6 weeks later.

Over the next 6-week period, during sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy, the patient was noted to be less talkative, with slow processing, impaired recall, and mild inattention. Repeat MRI with angiography performed 6 weeks after the first study revealed patchy hyperintensity involving the centrum semiovale, corona radiata, internal capsule, and corticospinal tract bilaterally on T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) imaging, without contrast enhancement; the cerebral vasculature was normal.

The patient had recurrent falls without loss of consciousness and began using a wheelchair. She reported worsening sadness, anxiety, and anhedonia, and treatment with buspirone was started. On evaluation in the neurology clinic 6 weeks before the current admission, testing of leg strength yielded inconsistent results, but strength in both legs was assessed as 5−/5 with maximum effort. Dragging of the left leg was also noted to be inconsistent. There were concerns that her depression might be contributing to her neurologic changes, and further follow-up with the psychiatric service was recommended.

Five weeks before the current admission, the patient’s husband brought her to the emergency department of this hospital for an evaluation of worsening memory impairment, poor self-care, and frequent falls. The patient had stopped participating in physical therapy and was spending most of the day in bed. She reported that she had lost 14 kg during the previous 4 months. Other medical history included hypertension, diabetes, and osteoarthritis of the knees. There was a history of postpartum depression 27 years earlier that had lasted for several months. Medications included amlodipine, buspirone, bupropion, cholecalciferol, citalopram, metformin, and trazodone. There were no known drug allergies. The patient lived with her husband in a suburb of Boston and worked as a teacher. She was a lifelong nonsmoker, drank alcohol only occasionally, and did not use illicit drugs. Her mother had a history of anxiety and depression in her seventh decade of life. Her sister had a history of stroke.

On examination, the patient appeared tired and disheveled, with psychomotor retardation. Strength in both legs was assessed as 5/5. She had a monoplegic gait, with buckling of the left leg, when walking down a hallway, but she had a normal gait when walking on a treadmill. Her score on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment was 25, indicating mild cognitive impairment; scores range from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive function. The complete blood count, results of liver-function and kidney-function tests, and blood levels of cobalamin, thyrotropin, and electrolytes were normal. Screening for syphilis, Lyme disease, and the human immunodeficiency virus was negative, as was urine toxicologic screening. After an evaluation by a neurology consultant, the patient was voluntarily admitted to the inpatient psychiatric unit.

While the patient was in the hospital, the dose of citalopram was tapered, and treatment with desvenlafaxine and amphetamine–dextroamphetamine was started; her levels of attention and wakefulness increased. She participated in group psychotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and occupational and physical therapy. She continued to have variable weakness in the left leg and had three witnessed falls, during which she reportedly had fatigue and lowered herself to the ground.

On hospital day 11, the patient reported being unable to use her left arm because of weakness. Although her left arm rested across her chest for most of the day, she was observed holding her husband’s hand with her left hand when saying goodbye. On evaluation by a neurology consultant, strength in the left arm was assessed as 5/5. The working diagnosis was functional neurologic disorder. On hospital day 12, the patient was discharged to a rehabilitation center.

At the rehabilitation center, the patient received physical, occupational, and speech therapy, as well as medications to treat depression. During the first week, she made progress toward independence in bathing, toileting, and grooming but had limited attention, memory, and problem solving. During the second week, she became more withdrawn. There was a paucity of speech with hypophonia, decreased attention, and less eye contact with visitors who sat on her left side than with visitors who sat on her right side. During the third week, the patient stopped answering questions and following commands. She was evaluated again in the emergency department of this hospital.

On examination, the temperature was 36.7°C, the blood pressure 141/90 mm Hg, the pulse 98 beats per minute, the respiratory rate 16 breaths per minute, and the oxygen saturation 99% while the patient was breathing ambient air. She was withdrawn and minimally interactive. She was able to state her name but not the date or location. She did not blink in response to threat on the left side and did not track the examiner’s finger past the midline to the left. There was flattening of the left nasolabial fold. The left arm was hypertonic and held in flexion; there was no spontaneous movement of the left arm or leg, and she declined to participate in a strength examination. She did not withdraw the left arm in response to nail-bed pressure; she withdrew the left foot with antigravity movement in response to tactile stimulation.

The white-cell count was 12,940 per microliter (reference range, 4500 to 11,000), with a normal differential count. The remainder of the complete blood count was normal, as were the results of liver-function and kidney-function tests and blood levels of electrolytes.

 

A NEJM Case 76 Male

 I fed this report from NEJM into GPT4 for a diagnosis.

###

https://www.nejm.org/doi/story/10.1056/feature.2023.01.01.100096

I used a simple text cut/paste which loses formatting.  Labs were presented in a JPEG table, so I wasn't able to cut and paste them, putting the AI at a disadvantage.

##

Presentation of Case

 

Dr. George Karandinos (Medicine): A 76-year-old man was evaluated in the emergency department of this hospital because of dizziness and altered mental status.

On the day of the current evaluation, the patient was observed crawling on a city sidewalk. He appeared pale and diaphoretic. On evaluation by emergency medical services, he reported feeling dizzy and “weird.” A fingerstick blood glucose level was 152 mg per deciliter (8.4 mmol per liter). He was brought to the emergency department of this hospital for further evaluation.

In the emergency department, the patient could not recall recent events, but he reported shortness of breath, as well as chronic back pain and persistent ringing in the ears. He was unable to give additional details of his history, but he provided the name of the hospital where he routinely received care. On a phone consultation, physicians at that hospital reported that the patient had a history of traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, seizure disorder, chronic back pain due to spinal stenosis, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, chronic kidney disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and anxiety. Prescribed medications included lisinopril and transdermal lidocaine. There were no known drug allergies. The patient had consumed alcohol in the past but not for 40 years. His family history was unknown.

The temporal temperature was 36.6°C, the heart rate 92 beats per minute, the blood pressure 183/113 mm Hg, the respiratory rate 27 breaths per minute, and the oxygen saturation 99% while the patient was breathing ambient air. The patient appeared disheveled and diaphoretic. He was somnolent but awakened to verbal stimuli. He was oriented to person, place, and time but only intermittently followed commands. A small superficial skin abrasion was noted above the left eyebrow. There was mild tenderness on palpation of the midback but no other evidence of trauma. The remainder of the examination was normal.

Table 1. Laboratory Data.

Table 1

Figure 1. Initial Imaging Studies.

Figure 1

An axial image from CT angiography of the head (Panel A), obtained before the administration of contrast material, shows nonspecific mild white‑matter changes (arrowheads) and a nonspecific small right‑peritrigonal calcification (arrow). A coronal image from CT angiography of the chest (Panel B), obtained after the administration of contrast material, shows no pulmonary edema, consolidation, or pneumothorax. An axial image from CT angiography of the abdomen (Panel C), obtained before the administration of contrast material, shows a left adrenal nodule (arrow) with an attenuation level of less than 10 Hounsfield units, a finding consistent with an adenoma.

Figure 2. MRI of the Head.

Figure 2

MRI of the head confirmed the findings on CT, showing no acute or subacute infarction, mass, or acute intracranial hemorrhage. A T2‑weighted fluid‑attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) image (Panel A) and a susceptibility‑weighted image (Panel B) show right‑peritrigonal signal abnormalities (arrows) that correlate with the small calcification observed on CT, a finding suggestive of either a calcified cavernous malformation or sequelae of previous infection or inflammation. The T2‑weighted FLAIR image (Panel A) also shows nonspecific mild white‑matter changes (arrowhead). A diffusion‑weighted image (Panel C) shows no abnormal restricted diffusivity.

Point-of-care ultrasonography, performed with an approach known as FAST (focused assessment with sonography for trauma), showed no abnormalities. The blood ethanol level was undetectable, and urine toxicologic testing was negative for amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, cocaine, and opiates. The blood levels of lipase, magnesium, and N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide were normal, as were results of liver-function tests. There was mild normocytic anemia, but the complete blood count with differential count was otherwise normal. Other laboratory test results are shown in Table 1. Testing of a nasopharyngeal swab for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was negative. Samples of blood and urine were obtained for culture. An electrocardiogram showed sinus rhythm, intraventricular conduction delay, left axis deviation, and nonspecific minor ST-segment and T-wave abnormalities. Imaging studies were obtained.

Dr. Brooks P. Applewhite: Radiographs of the chest and pelvis showed no acute abnormalities. Computed tomographic (CT) angiography of the head and neck (Figure 1A) revealed nonspecific mild white-matter changes, a nonspecific small focal calcification in the right-peritrigonal white matter, atherosclerosis without high-grade cerebrovascular stenosis, and multilevel spondylotic changes without severe spinal canal stenosis. There was no evidence of acute intracranial hemorrhage or territorial infarction. CT angiography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis (Figure 1B and 1C) revealed no evidence of aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism, pneumothorax, pulmonary edema, lung consolidation, or pericardial effusion. There was a left adrenal nodule that measured 19 mm in diameter, a finding consistent with an adenoma.

Dr. Karandinos: Normal saline with 5% dextrose was administered intravenously. During the next 8 hours, the patient was agitated and combative. He repeatedly removed peripheral intravenous catheters and disconnected monitors. He was no longer oriented to place or time. Two doses of olanzapine were administered intravenously, and the patient slept for several hours during the night.

Sixteen hours after the patient arrived in the emergency department, the temporal temperature was 37.7°C, the heart rate 78 beats per minute, the blood pressure 160/72 mm Hg, the respiratory rate 20 breaths per minute, and the oxygen saturation 100% while he was breathing ambient air. The patient was observed to be breathing deeply. He was able to state his name, but his speech was otherwise nonsensical and dysarthric. He followed commands only when visual cues were given; for example, he stuck out his tongue after the examiner demonstrated the task. Motor, sensory, and reflex examinations were normal; tests of cerebellar function were not performed. Additional laboratory test results are shown in Table 1. The results of electroencephalography (EEG) were normal, without epileptiform abnormalities. Normal saline with potassium chloride was administered intravenously, as was lorazepam. Additional imaging studies were obtained.

Dr. Applewhite: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head (Figure 2) revealed no evidence of acute intracranial hemorrhage or acute or subacute infarction. T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images showed a mild burden of white-matter signal hyperintensities, which are nonspecific but typical of chronic small-vessel disease. The previously detected calcification in the right-peritrigonal white matter correlated with an 8-mm focus of T1 and T2 signal abnormalities with associated susceptibility blooming, a finding suggestive of either a calcified cavernous malformation or sequelae of previous infection or inflammation.

Dr. Karandinos: The patient’s mental status did not improve. Twenty-four hours after he arrived in the emergency department, he was admitted to the hospital with a working diagnosis of seizure. The temporal temperature was 37.6°C, the heart rate 77 beats per minute, the blood pressure 151/70 mm Hg, the respiratory rate 22 breaths per minute, and the oxygen saturation 98% while he was breathing ambient air. Respiratory effort appeared increased. He was somnolent, and he followed simple commands but did not open his eyes in response to sternal rub. The blood levels of creatine kinase, fibrinogen, and ammonia were normal. Other laboratory test results are shown in Table 1.

Thiamine was administered intravenously.

[DIAGNOSIS FOLLOWS AND DISCUSSION]