MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999061815 · doi:10.1159/000075146

Pericardial Hemangioma Presenting as Thoracic Mass in utero

2004· article· en· W1999061815 on OpenAlexaff
Pramod S. Puligandla, Sandra Kay, Lucie Morin, Valérie Désilets, Luc Jutras, Dominique Shum‐Tim, C Bernard, Hélène Flageole

Bibliographic record

VenueFetal Diagnosis and Therapy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac tumors and thrombi
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Children's HospitalPediatric Oncology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChest radiographRadiologyAsymptomaticPericardial effusionPericardiumHemangiomaPulmonary sequestrationLesionPleural effusionLungRadiographySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pericardial hemangiomas are rare lesions. We present the case of an infant who was referred to our fetal diagnosis and treatment group for the presence of a left thoracic mass, pleural effusion, and mediastinal shift on fetal ultrasound. The characteristics of the lesion suggested the presence of a pulmonary sequestration. A chest radiograph done at birth was normal. At 2 weeks of age, an enhancing lesion of the left pericardium was identified on chest CT. A cardiac MRI demonstrated enhancement of the mass on T2-weighted images. The patient underwent thoracoscopic assessment of the mass for diagnostic purposes. Multiple lesions were identified along the left pericardium and diaphragm. A frozen section biopsy revealed a hemangioma. The natural history for hemangiomas is gradual regression; however, they may increase acutely in size and cause symptoms prior to involution. Investigations should be performed to identify the involvement of other organs. This case illustrates the need to closely follow all patients with prenatally diagnosed thoracic masses with CT imaging, even when they are asymptomatic and have a normal chest radiograph at birth.

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)0.000
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 score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFetal Diagnosis and TherapySame topicCardiac tumors and thrombiFrench-language works237,207