MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964655718 · doi:10.14740/jocmr2042w

An Adrenal Mass and Increased Catecholamines: Monoamine Oxidase or Pheochromocytoma Effect?

2014· article· en· W1964655718 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marianne Roberta Frederiek Bosscher, I. M. E. Wentholt, Mariëtte T. Ackermans, Els J.�M. Nieveen van Dijkum

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdrenal and Paraganglionic Tumors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormetanephrineMetanephrineMetanephrinesMedicinePheochromocytomaMonoamine oxidaseEndocrinologyInternal medicineAdrenalectomyEnzymeChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hormonal evaluation in patients with an adrenal incidentaloma can be difficult in patients with comorbidities or in patients using interfering drugs. We present a case of a 54-year-old man who was evaluated for an adrenal mass. The medical history reported treatment with a monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitor for recurrent psychoses. Hormonal screening showed elevated levels of normetanephrine and metanephrine in plasma and urine, suggesting a diagnosis of pheochromocytoma (PHEO), and an adrenalectomy was performed. Histologic examination showed that the tumor had an origin of the adrenal cortex. MAO inhibitors are also known to cause elevated levels of catecholamines. In this case, a PHEO seemed more likely the cause due to repeatedly elevated levels of metanephrines and normal levels of catecholamines. Since the tumor had an origin of the adrenal cortex, the use of MAO inhibitors was the most likely explanation for the elevated levels of metanephrines. This case illustrated the difficulties in diagnosing PHEO, especially in patients with comorbidities and interfering drugs.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.390 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicAdrenal and Paraganglionic TumorsFrench-language works237,207