MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1692046473 · doi:10.1155/2006/386918

Eosinophilic Pancreatitis Mimicking Pancreatic Neoplasia

2006· article· en· W1692046473 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Çay, Mustafa İmamoğlu, Ümit Çobanoğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEosinophilic Esophagitis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePancreatitisEosinophiliaEosinophilicPancreasBiopsyDuodenumPancreatic ductPancreatic diseasePancreatic massGastroenterologyAutoimmune pancreatitisEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyCommon bile ductPathologyPrednisoloneRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eosinophilic pancreatitis (EP) is a rare disease. It typically occurs in the setting of either eosinophilic gastroenteritis or the hypereosinophilic syndrome. Isolated eosinophilic infiltration of the pancreas is less common. EP usually presents as a pancreatic tumour with abdominal pain and/or obstructive jaundice. The diagnosis is often not made until after pancreatic resection under suspicion of a pancreatic tumour. The case of a 14-year-old boy whose initial presentation was suggestive of a pancreatic tumour is reported. Radiological evaluation revealed a pancreatic mass suggestive of a pancreatic tumour obstructing the duodenum and common bile duct. The patient underwent surgery and a gastrojejunal anostomosis, tube cholecystostomy and biopsy were performed with no postoperative complications. The diagnosis of EP was established after surgical biopsy. The biopsy specimen revealed prominent eosinophilic infiltration. Serum immunoglobulin E levels were elevated. The patient was treated with oral prednisolone (40 mg/day). After two months of oral steroid therapy, clinical manifestations rapidly improved and peripheral eosinophilia subsided. Computed tomography scan revealed remission of the pancreatic mass-like lesion.

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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations36
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicEosinophilic EsophagitisFrench-language works237,207