MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pleuropulmonary blastoma

2000· article· fr· W1972238439 on OpenAlexaff
James R. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeoplasmPulmonary BlastomaHamartomaPathologyInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pleuropulmonary blastoma is a rare, aggressive neoplasm that typically occurs in young children. It has been classified as type I, II, or III on the basis of the cystic versus solid nature of the lesion as well as the histologic appearance. Although it has been speculated that type I lesions may have a tendency to progress into type III lesions, no such case has been reported to date. METHODS: A case of type I pleuropulmonary blastoma in a girl age 2 years 9 months was found in our departmental archive. This case, originally diagnosed as a hamartoma over 20 years ago, predated the description of this pathologic entity. Over a 3-year period, the patient underwent excisions of a primary tumor and 3 subsequent recurrences, thus allowing us to follow the natural history of this neoplasm. RESULTS: The primary tumor was a large, multicystic mass (roughly 90% cystic by volume) with benign histologic appearance except for occasional foci with bland, embryonal rhabdomyosarcomatous features. In subsequent recurrences, the resected specimens became increasingly solid and had an anaplastic, multiphasic mesenchymal pattern. CONCLUSIONS: The course of the patient described here represents the first case in which transition from type I (cystic) to type III (solid) was documented.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0040.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 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

Citations44
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia StudiesFrench-language works237,207