MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1907101976 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.2581

Primitive neuroectodermal tumour of the kidney: An unusual case mimicking renal angiomyolipoma with minimal fat

2015· article· en· W1907101976 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jing Xie, Jin Wen, Yalan Bi, Hanzhong Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAngiomyolipomaKidneyMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyMetastasisLesionPositron emission tomographyPathologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primitive neuroectodermal tumour (PNET) is a highly aggressive neoplasm that develops classically in the central nervous system. PNET of the kidney (rPNET) is extremely rare. Recently, a 23-year-old woman complained of left flank pain and intermittent hematuria for 3 months and was admitted to our hospital. A computed tomography (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a 5.1 × 4.4-cm heterogenous mass with unconspicuous reinforcement in the upper pole of the left kidney. F18-FDG positron emission tomography CT (PET-CT) revealed the mass as a benign lesion with internal extensive bleeding. Renal angiomyolipoma with minimal fat was diagnosed. Three months later, a CT scan showed that the mass shrank to 3.1 × 2.6 cm and nephron-sparing surgery of the left kidney was performed at the patient's request. However, histologic features and immunohistochemical analysis confirmed the diagnosis of rPNET. Five cycles of combined chemotherapy were executed. At the 11-month follow-up, the patient showed no evidence of metastasis or recurrence.

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)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.002
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→