MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1954134065 · doi:10.14740/jmc.v6i9.2258

Incidental Diagnosis of Granular Cell Tumor of Vulva: Importance of Discussing Vulvar Health at the Annual Well-Woman Examination

2015· article· en· W1954134065 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Navleen Gill, Mili Thakur, Jocelyn Peters, Awoniyi O. Awonuga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTumors and Oncological Cases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulvaMedicineGranular cell tumorAsymptomaticEmbarrassmentBiopsyVulvar DiseasesPathologyDermatologyImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Granular cell tumors are rare tumors of neurogenic or Schwann cell origin and are known to involve the vulva. The objective of this case is to highlight the importance of careful vulvar examination during the annual well-woman examination by presenting a case of an incidental finding of granular cell tumor of the vulva. A 55-year-old African American female was noted to have an incidental finding of a 2 × 2 cm slow growing right vulvar lump at her yearly gynecologic exam. The lesion was excised and the histopathology was consistent with a benign granular cell tumor of the vulva. Immunostaining was positive for S100 and neuron-specific enolase. Asymptomatic vulvar masses can be the only presenting feature of a neoplastic process. Women may not seek medical attention due to embarrassment or lack of recognizing the importance of symptoms. This case report highlights such a scenario as a reminder to carefully examine the vulva during annual well-woman examination. A low threshold for biopsy can assist in diagnosing pre-invasive and invasive vulvar lesions. J Med Cases. 2015;6(9):417-419 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc2258w

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)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicTumors and Oncological CasesFrench-language works237,207