Lipomatous, vascular, and chondromatous benign tumors of the peripheral nerves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Benign peripheral nerve lesions of lipomatous, vascular, and chondromatous origin are very rare. Only one previous case of brachial plexus involvement by such a tumor has been reported. The authors report on their experience with peripheral nerve tumors in three patients and review the available literature on these topics. The three cases discussed include a 44-year-old woman with an intraneural lipoma of the right middle trunk, a 40-year-old woman with an intraneural hemangioma infiltrating the right posterior cord, and a newborn male with a predominantly cartilaginous hamartoma originating from the right C-5 nerve root. The literature review yielded six previous cases of intraneural lipoma, approximately 50 cases of lipofibromatous hamartoma, 13 cases of intraneural hemangioma, and no previous case of cartilaginous hamartoma originating from a nerve. Intraneural lipomas are well encapsulated, and gross-total resection can be achieved. Lipofibromatous hamartomas are diffusely infiltrative; decompressive debulking and neurolysis is often the most appropriate initial approach for patients with symptomatic lesions. Resection of intraneural hemangiomas can be achieved but may require nerve resection and repair in some cases. Debulking has been reported to provide prolonged symptomatic relief in these lesions, and preoperative embolization and postoperative radiotherapy were beneficial in the case presented here. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first reported case of a cartilaginous hamartoma infiltrating a peripheral nerve. Gross-total resection of symptomatic intraneural lipomas is feasible and apparently curative. The optimal treatment for lipofibromatous hamartomas and vascular and chondromatous lesions of the peripheral nerves is uncertain and should be guided by the severity of symptoms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".