MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979783938 · doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02107-5

Invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the vagina during pregnancy1

2002· article· en· W1979783938 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Steed

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaginaCervixVaginal bleedingGestationPregnancySurgeryCarcinomaGynecologyObstetricsCancerPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Squamous cell carcinoma of the vagina in pregnancy is rare. CASE: A 28-year-old primigravida with antepartum bleeding at 20 weeks' gestation was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma after biopsy of a vaginal mass. The histology revealed an invasive grade 3 squamous cell carcinoma of large-cell, nonkeratinizing type. The patient declined pregnancy termination and immediate radiation treatment. She continued to have episodes of vaginal bleeding and was admitted at 30 weeks' gestation. A decision was made in consultation with the neonatal unit to deliver her at 32 weeks' gestation. After corticosteroid treatment, she was delivered by cesarean delivery. Positive pelvic lymph nodes were noted at surgery. Postoperatively, she received external beam radiation and brachytherapy and concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy. She is disease free 3 years from her original diagnosis. CONCLUSION: This case emphasizes the importance of a thorough pelvic examination to assess the vaginal walls and cervix at the first prenatal visit and with any antepartum bleeding episode.

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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations15
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207