Prostatic Adenocarcinoma With Pseudocapsule
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 72-year-old man was referred to our hospital for treatment of prostatic adenocarcinoma with atypical imaging findings. The periprostatic mass was distinguishable from the prostate on magnetic resonance imaging, although the prostatic adenocarcinoma had been identified by needle biopsy at a previous hospital. To confirm the site of prostatic adenocarcinoma, transrectal ultrasonography-directed biopsy of the prostate and solitary mass was performed in our hospital. Diagnosis by re-biopsy revealed prostatic adenocarcinoma existing as a solitary mass. Radical prostatectomy was performed with no evidence of metastasis on imaging findings. Intraoperative findings revealed no adhesion between the prostate and pelvic floor. Pathological diagnosis revealed negative surgical margins, and a thin crust surrounding the adenocarcinoma. Strict pathological examination indicated a tiny adenocarcinoma existing within morphologically normal prostate tissue comprising nearly the entire mass. Based on these results, the final pathological diagnosis was locally advanced adenocarcinoma with pseudocapsule. In the present case, we concluded that a tiny prostatic adenocarcinoma had expanded in the lateral pelvic fascia, which formed a pseudocapsule. By 14 months postoperatively, prostate-specific antigen levels had decreased below the limit of detection. To the best of our knowledge, prostatic adenocarcinoma with pseudocapsule has not been described previously. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/wjnu76w
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".