MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1535763442 · doi:10.5348/ijcri-201582-cr-10543

Multiple Intracranial Inflammatory Pseudotumors

2015· article· en· W1535763442 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Gillis, John A. Maguire, Charles S. Haw

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Case Reports and Images · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIgG4-Related and Inflammatory Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectronic journalMedicineFree accessInternal medicineWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Inflammatory pseudotumor is a rare intracranial lesion. Reports of multiple intracranial inflammatory pseudotumors are very rare. Case Report: A 68 year old woman presented with left hemiparesis and sensory neglect and was found to have two homogeneously enhancing lesions on computed tomography (CT) scan near the right rolandic area. The larger of the two lesions was resected with the presumed radiographic and intraoperative diagnosis of meningioma. Pathology demonstrated inflammatory pseudotumor. She re-presented 8 months postoperatively with both progression of the remaining lesion and a de novo lesion. Biopsy was done which reaffirmed the diagnosis. The patient was tried on high dose steroid, giving radiographic but not clinical improvement. Treatment was intensified to methotrexate which gave both clinical and radiographic improvement. The patient was then treated with Methotrexate giving symptomatic improvement. Conclusion: The differential for extra-axial lesions should include inflammatory pseudotumor. The best treatment for this disease process has not been determined. Surgical resection and steroid therapy may help temporize symptoms and provide a diagnosis but in the case of multiple lesions this likely represents a diffuse intracranial process requiring chemotherapy.

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)0.001
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Case Reports and ImagesSame topicIgG4-Related and Inflammatory DiseasesFrench-language works237,207