MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963803634 · doi:10.5539/cco.v4n1p47

Sacral Nerve Hemangiopericytoma: A Rare Case and Review of the Literature

2015· article· en· W1963803634 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Osama Ahmed, Richard Menger, Sunil Kukreja, Shihao Zhang, Christopher Storey, Anil Nanda, Bharat Guthikonda

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer and Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSoft tissue tumor case studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSacrumHemangiopericytomaNerve rootSurgerySpinal canalSoft tissueRadiation therapyAnatomySpinal cordRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Hemangiopericytomas usually occur in the soft tissue and skeletal system. They rarely present in the spinal canal as a primary tumor. There are several case reports describing primary spinal hemangiopericytomas of the cervical and thoracic spine; however, there are only 3 reports of sacral hemangioperictyomas (Liu, 2013; McMaster, 1975; Zhao, 2007). We report an extremely rare presentation of a primary spinal hemangiopericytoma arising from the S2 nerve root with local bony destruction of the sacrum. Case Report: A 52 year-old male presented with low back pain and left lower extremity numbness and tingling. MRI showed a 5.2 cm x 5.7 cm sacral mass, and CT showed local bony destruction of the sacrum. He complained of left S2 pain. The patient was taken for resection of the tumor. A gross total resection was achieved from a posterior midline approach. A corridor lateral to the sacral nerves allows resection of the ventral portion of the tumor. A gross total resection was achieved with a small residual adherent to the left S2 nerve root. Pathology confirmed the tumor to be a grade II hemangiopericytoma. Adjuvant radiotherapy was recommended due to the residual.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer and Clinical OncologySame topicSoft tissue tumor case studiesFrench-language works237,207