Sonographic Diagnosis of Primary Malignant Tumors of the Fallopian Tube
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to illustrate the sonographic features of primary malignant tumors of the fallopian tube and to heighten awareness of their existence. This is a retrospective review of the imaging and clinical files of 7 patients with a primary malignant tumor of the fallopian tube found in the medical records of 4500 patients with primary gynecologic malignancies seen during the last 6 years at the authors' institution. All patients had transvaginal sonography before surgery. Images were reviewed to determine common features of this rarely encountered pathology. Transvaginal sonography showed normal ovaries in 5 patients in association with a discrete solid adnexal mass in 4. The fallopian tube origin of the mass was shown directly in 2 of these 4 patients and was inferred in the other 2 on the basis of a mass in the expected location of the fallopian tube. In the 3 patients without a discrete adnexal mass, there were more extensive changes, including large, solid adnexal masses of unknown origin (n = 2) and gross peritoneal carcinomatosis (n = 1). Fallopian tube malignancies should be considered when unexplained solid masses corresponding with the expected location of the fallopian tubes are seen in association with normal ovaries. Disease dissemination may show carcinomatosis or more extensive pelvic disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".