MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1722111647

Steroid cell tumor.

2008· article· en· W1722111647 on OpenAlexaff
Abdul R Al-Farsi, Ayman Al‐Talib

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinehirsutismLeydig Cell TumorTestosterone (patch)OvaryLeydig cellPathologyUrologyInternal medicineHormoneLuteinizing hormone
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 42-year-old woman presented with abdominal pain, increasing hirsutism and clitoromegaly [Figure 1]. Her plasma testosterone levels were very high (total testosterone: 33.3 ng/mL, free testosterone: 912 pg/mL) and the canver antigen 125 (CA-125) test was 120 U/mL. The computed tomography showed a large, 12.7 x 7.2 cm, lobulated, enhancing mass with central necrosis originating from the right ovary with a moderate amount of ascites. The preoperative diagnosis was Sertoli-Leydig cell tumor. The patient had an exploratory laparatomy where a total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingooopherectomy, lymph nodes dissection and omentectomy were performed [Figure 2]. The tumour, which was removed, was confined to the right ovary and there was no evidence of adjacent structures involvement. No ascites was seen. During the surgery, the patient’s blood pressure went up to 240/140 mmHg. Postoperatively, the patient was doing well though her blood pressure was uncontrolled so was started on Micardis® (telmisartan). Serum levels of testosterone returned to normal a few weeks after the surgery. The histopathological diagnosis was a steroid cell tumor, not otherwise specified [Figure 3]. Figure 1: Clitoromegaly Figure 2: Steriod cell tumor gross appearance Figure 3: Histological appearance of cell tumor Steroid cell tumours of the ovary account for approximately 0.1% of all ovarian tumours and are subdivided into 3 subtypes: stromal leuteomas, Leydig cell tumours, and steroid cell tumours, not otherwise specified (NOS). The steroid cell tumour (NOS) is the most common of the 3 subtypes, accounting for approximately 60% of these tumors and the majority of them show virilisation,1, 2 25–45% of which are clinically malignant.2, 3 Estrogen secretion occurs in 6% to 23% of the tumors, which may be associated with menorrhagia, postmenopausal bleeding, or even endometrial adenocarcinoma. Cushing’s syndrome occurs in 6% to 10% of the cases. Approximately 25% of the cases of steroid cell tumours (NOS) are not associated with hormonal disturbances.4 They can occur at any age, but usually develop in adults with an average age of 43 years.1 Steroid cell tumours often present as unilateral solid tumours and occasionally as cystic tumours. Necrosis or calcification is frequently associated.5 Ovarian steroid cell tumours are characterised by cells with abundant intracellular lipids, which are similar to adrenocortical cells.6 The classical gross finding of steroid cell tumor (NOS) is a solid, well-circumscribed ovarian mass. Microscopic findings include diffusely arranged cells, although tumor cells may be present in nests, clusters, cords, or columns. The stroma is most commonly scant, but may be prominent and can occasionally be fibromatous, edematous, or myxoid. The cells are polygonal to round, with distinct cell borders and central nuclei, and they often have prominent nucleoli. The cytoplasm varies from spongy in lipid-rich cells to granular and eosinophilic in lipid-poor or lipid-free cells [Figure 3]. The mainstay of ovarian steroid cell tumor is surgery. Careful follow-up evaluation should include a measurement of sex hormone levels, particularly for those patients who demonstrated elevated levels before removal of the primary tumor.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.007

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→