A rare cavernous hemangioma of the adrenal gland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cavernous hemangiomas of the adrenal gland are rare. We report a case of a cavernous hemangioma of the adrenal gland presenting as an adrenal incidentaloma suspicious for adrenal cortical carcinoma (ACC). PRESENTATION OF CASE: A 78 year old woman was admitted after a fall. Abdominal computed tomography revealed a large right adrenal lesion with features suspicious for adrenal cortical carcinoma (5.4cm×3.3cm, unilateral, tumor calcifications, average Hounsfield units 55). The tumor was removed intact by a laparoscopic approach and pathology revealed a cavernous hemangioma of the adrenal gland. DISCUSSION: Adrenal incidentalomas are found in up to 10% of patients undergoing abdominal imaging. Differential diagnosis includes both benign and malignant lesions. Guidelines for removal of adrenal incidentalomas recommend surgery based on functional status, size, and presence of concerning features on diagnostic imaging. Cavernous hemangiomas are rare, benign vascular malformations which can be challenging to distinguish pre-operatively from malignant lesions such as ACC. CONCLUSION: Cavernous hemangiomas of the adrenal gland are exceedingly rare. These benign tumors have imaging features which may be suggestive of adrenal cortical carcinoma. The treatment of choice is surgical excision due the difficulty of excluding malignancy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".