Appendix carcinoids in childhood: Long‐term experience at a single institution in Western Canada and systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe the management experience of children with appendix carcinoids (AC). METHOD: A systematic review of the literature pertaining to AC in the pediatric population was performed. PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS and most significant Congress proceedings were reviewed. In addition, charts and files at Stollery Children's Hospital, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, were retrieved and the data compared with the scientific literature review. RESULTS: Between January 2000 and October 2010, seven patients had AC at the authors' institution. Mean age at diagnosis was 15 years while the male : female ratio was 3:4. Five out of seven patients presented with acute appendicitis. Size ranged up to 1.4 cm. In one case only lymph node metastases were observed. No distant metastases were seen in any patient. Carcinoid was low grade in all seven children. One patient suffered from familial adenomatous polyposis. At a mean follow up of 53.4 months, the outcome was excellent with all patients alive without disease. In the systematic review, 206 studies referring to AC in children were identified. Most series on childhood AC were small single-center series with 2-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Older age (>10 years) at diagnosis, female preponderance, and tumor diameter <1.5 cm were the salient observations in the present study. Surgical resection at an early stage allows for excellent prognosis without the need for any additional surgical or adjuvant treatment. Genetic counseling may be appropriate in view of the possible association with colonic adenocarcinoma.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".