MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intraductal tubular adenoma (pyloric gland‐type) of the pancreas: a reappraisal and possible relationship with gastric‐type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm

2009· article· en· W1991467715 on OpenAlexaff
Runjan Chetty, Stefano Serra

Bibliographic record

VenueHistopathology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraductal papillary mucinous neoplasmMedicinePancreasPathologyPancreatic ductAtypiaStomachTubular adenomaGastroenterologyInternal medicineCancerColonoscopyColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Intraductal tubular adenoma (ITA) is an uncommon intraluminal polypoid lesion that occurs in the main pancreatic duct and involves the main pancreatic duct in the region of head or body. Three cases of ITA are presented, the literature reviewed and their association with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) is postulated. METHODS AND RESULTS: ITA is composed of tightly packed tubular structures with focal cystic dilation and papillary areas lined by gastric/pyloric epithelium showing minimal to mild cytological atypia. Pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) 1A and B was present in smaller ducts of all cases. In addition, in the cases in this report and 50% of cases reported in the literature, an associated gastric-type IPMN was present in the same duct as the ITA or in adjacent ducts. The coexistence of ITA and IPMN and the similarities of their epithelial lining (gastric/pyloric mucosa) suggest a possible pathogenic link. CONCLUSIONS: ITA can occur without (type A) or with (type B) an associated gastric-type IPMN. ITA could represent a localized, polypoid form of gastric-type IPMN.It is a benign lesion with no evidence of invasion and no direct tumour-related deaths. Its relationship to intraductal tubular carcinoma remains to be elucidated.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistopathologySame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207