MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1942642104 · doi:10.1136/jnnp.2003.028118

Massive reduction of tumour load and normalisation of hyperprolactinaemia after high dose cabergoline in metastasised prolactinoma causing thoracic syringomyelia

2004· article· en· W1942642104 on OpenAlexaff
Stan Van Uum

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Dysraphism and Malformations
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCabergolineProlactinomaHyperprolactinaemiaMedicineBromocriptineDopamine agonistSyringomyeliaMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicineProlactinUrologyEndocrinologyDopamineRadiologyDopaminergicHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1970 a 20 year old woman presented with a pituitary chromophobe adenoma for which she underwent transfrontal pituitary surgery. In 1978 she had to be reoperated on because of local tumour recurrence, resulting in hypopituitarism. Bromocriptine (5 mg/day) was given for 15 years, but the plasma prolactin levels remained elevated. In 2000 the patient presented with signs and symptoms suggestive of a spinal cord lesion at the mid-thoracic level. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan showed an extensive leptomeningeal mass extending from the brainstem to L5, with a thoracic syringomyelia at the T7-T8 level. The plasma prolactin level was very high (5114 microg/l). A biopsy showed the presence of a metastasised prolactinoma. On administration of high dose cabergoline, 0.5 mg twice a day orally, the plasma prolactin levels decreased within one month and then normalised within 26 months. Tumour load reduced considerably but unfortunately, her signs and symptoms did not improve. This case illustrates that a high dose dopamine agonist might be an important therapeutic option in patients with a metastasised prolactinoma.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicSpinal Dysraphism and MalformationsFrench-language works237,207