MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981836015 · doi:10.4251/wjgo.v5.i8.177

Neuroendocrine tumor metastatic to the orbit treated with radiotherapy

2013· article· en· W1981836015 on OpenAlexaff
Renata D’Alpino Peixoto

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiplopiaNeuroendocrine tumorsOrbit (dynamics)MetastasisMagnetic resonance imagingRadiation therapyCarcinoid syndromeOctreotideRadiologyBiopsySurgeryPathologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuroendocrine tumors are rare neoplasms that infrequently metastasize to the orbit. Given that patients with these tumors may have prolonged survival despite dissemination, maintaining quality of life by providing early diagnosis and effective treatment to preserve vision and comfort is a fundamental issue. We report the case of a 79-year old woman who presented with well-differentiated metastatic neuroendocrine tumor to the liver with no carcinoid syndrome and was started on intramuscular long-acting octreotide with disease stabilization. Two years later she developed right-sided diplopia associated with mild eye discomfort, proptosis and reddening. An magnetic resonance imaging showed a 2.1 cm mass in the right orbit and further biopsy confirmed a neuroendocrine tumor metastasis. The patient was treated with a four-week course of stereotactic radiotherapy to the right orbital metastasis (4000 cGy in 20 fractions) with minor conjunctivitis as the only side effect. Eighteen months later, she remains well with no visual loss.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Gastrointestinal OncologySame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207