Goblet cell carcinoids at extraappendiceal locations of gastrointestinal tract: An underrecognized diagnostic pitfall
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Goblet cell carcinoid (GCC) is a clinicopathologically distinctive tumor that typically arises in appendix and metastasizes frequently. Although rare cases of ostensibly primary extraappendiceal GCC (EGCC) have been reported, the distinction from extraappendiceal metastasis of occult appendiceal primary may be problematic and has not been dealt with systematically in literature. METHODS: We reviewed our combined experience with EGCC at four North American hospitals and reevaluated all EGCC cases published in literature. RESULTS: We encountered 16 cases that were initially reported as EGCC. Five cases presented with disseminated abdominopelvic spread, nine cases with mass lesions in stomach, ileum, cecum, ascending colon, hepatic flexure, sigmoid, and rectum. One case was found incidentally in an ascending colon adenomatous polyp. A negative appendix was confirmed in 2 (12.5%) cases, whereas a primary appendiceal GCC was discovered in 4 (25%) cases at a later date, and appendix was not available for review in 10 cases (62.5%). Of 10 cases of EGCC found in literature, the tumor sites included stomach, duodenum, jejunum, ileum, cecum, splenic flexure, and rectum. Primary appendiceal tumor was excluded histologically in one (10%), grossly in three (30%), and not at all in six (60%). Nine of our cases were initially misdiagnosed as signet-ring cell adenocarcinomas. CONCLUSIONS: True EGCC is extremely rare. GCC found at locations other than appendix are most likely extraappendiceal presentations of appendiceal primary. A thorough review of the pathologic status of appendix should be a mandatory diagnostic criterion and should always be documented in the pathology reports.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it