MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1757815920 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.2532

Composite renal cell carcinoma and angiomyolipoma in a patient with Tuberous sclerosis: A diagnostic dilemma

2015· article· en· W1757815920 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aanchal Kakkar, Archana George Vallonthaiel, Mehar C. Sharma, Girdhar S. Bora, Ananya Panda, Amlesh Seth

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberous Sclerosis Complex Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTuberous sclerosisRenal cell carcinomaMedicineAngiomyolipomaNephrectomyPathologyImmunohistochemistryKidney cancerClear cellKidneyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tuberous sclerosis (TS) is an autosomal dominant disorder associated with various renal pathologies, including angiomyolipoma (AML). Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with concomitant AML is rare. We report a case of composite RCC and AML in a young male with TS. This 25-year-old male presented with an abdominal mass. The abdominal computed tomography scan revealed RCC in the left kidney and AML in right kidney. A left radical nephrectomy was performed. Microscopy showed a tumour composed of closely intermingled RCC and AML components. Immunohistochemistry was performed for confirmation. A diagnosis of composite tumour with clear cell RCC and AML was made. Though the coexistence of RCC with AML is rare, and the composite variant is even rarer, one must be aware of this entity to prevent misdiagnosis as well as upstaging of RCC, and also to avoid missing areas of RCC within a large AML, especially in TS patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicTuberous Sclerosis Complex ResearchFrench-language works237,207