MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Plexiform Fibrohistiocytic Tumor with Molecular and Cytogenetic Analysis

2011· article· en· W1480876954 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stéphanie Leclerc‐Mercier, Florence Pédeutour, Thibault Fabas, Christophe Glorion, Nicole Brousse, Sylvie Fraitag

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Dermatology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma Cases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Cancer ResearchInstitut National Du CancerAssociation pour la Recherche sur le Cancer
KeywordsComparative genomic hybridizationFluorescence in situ hybridizationPathologyCytogeneticsMedicineMolecular cytogeneticsBiopsyIn situ hybridizationKaryotypeBiologyChromosomeGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A child with plexiform fibrohistiocytic tumor is presented, in whom a superficial biopsy was misdiagnosed as an inflammatory granuloma. Cytogenetic analysis revealed a 46,X,del(X)(q13)[3]/46,XX[23] karyotype. However, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and array-comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) analysis failed to detect any numerical or quantitative genomic anomaly. Because of lack of specific chromosomal hallmarks, a molecular diagnosis of plexiform fibrohistiocytic tumor with the currently available tools is not reliable.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric DermatologySame topicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma CasesFrench-language works237,207