MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1587867376 · doi:10.1155/2012/496742

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Esophageal Squamous Papillomatosis

2012· article· en· W1587867376 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Edward Kim, Michael F. Byrne, Fergal Donnellan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMetastasis and carcinoma case studies
Canadian institutionsStornoway Diamond (Canada)Vancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndoscopic mucosal resectionPapillomatosisMedicineDermatologyResectionInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 62-year-old woman was referred for investigation of heartburn.She did not have any other significant medical history and denied any other symptoms including weight loss, dysphagia, odynophagia, regurgitation and hematemesis.Her only medication was pantoprazole 40 mg daily for her gastroesophageal reflux disease.Endoscopy was performed with a GIF-Q180 gastroscope (Olympus Optical, Japan), which demonstrated multiple flesh-coloured pedunculated papules at the gastroesophageal junction (Figure 1).Biopsies demonstrating atypical epithelial proliferation confirmed the diagnosis of esophageal squamous papillomatosis, without the presence of dysplasia or carcinoma.A polymerase chain reaction study was negative for herpes simplex virus.Following discussion with the patient, an extensive endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) incorporating all of the lesions was performed using a band mucosectomy device (Duette, Cook Medical, Ireland) (Figures 2 and 3).Histology from the EMR specimens was similar to the original mucosal biopsy results.No immediate or delayed complications occurred.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicMetastasis and carcinoma case studiesFrench-language works237,207