MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W187286890 · doi:10.1155/2003/917073

Elastofibromatous Polyp of the Sigmoid Colon - A Case Report and Review of Gastrointestinal Elastofibromas

2003· review· en· W187286890 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zissis Vesoulis, Pars Ravichandran, Dimitri P. Agamanolis, Duane Roe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSoft tissue tumor case studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologySubmucosaLesionGastrointestinal tractSigmoid colonAmyloid (mycology)UltrastructureAnatomyStromaPathologicalMedicineImmunohistochemistryInternal medicineRectum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elastofibromatous change in the gastrointestinal tract is a rarely reported, usually polypoid lesion of unknown etiology with submucosal stromal change that may mimic amyloid deposition. The constituent amorphous material of the polyp stroma has distinctive features that permit an accurate assessment and diagnosis including: distribution of the material predominantly in the submucosa; distinctive fibrillar and granular appearance of the deposits; thick, irregular, haphazardly arranged bundles of elastic fibres positive for Verhoeff's elastic stain; ultrastructural fibres with an electron dense curvilinear or beaded appearance; lack of amyloid type vascular wall deposits; and lack of amyloid congophilia or crystal violet metachromasia. The clinical, light microscopic, histochemical and ultrastructural characteristics of this deposited material are reviewed in detail in the present report of a patient who presented with an asymptomatic polypoid lesion of the sigmoid colon. Other reported cases are summarized, and their clinical and pathological features are compared with the current case.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicSoft tissue tumor case studiesFrench-language works237,207