MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004458036 · doi:10.1016/j.ijscr.2013.11.003

A rare cavernous hemangioma of the adrenal gland

2013· article· en· W2004458036 on OpenAlexaff
Janet Edwards, Heather Stuart, Stefan J. Urbanski, Janice L. Pasieka

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery Case Reports · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdrenal and Paraganglionic Tumors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemangiomaMalignancyAdrenal glandIncidentalomaAdrenocortical carcinomaDifferential diagnosisRadiologyLesionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.261
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Surgery Case ReportsSame topicAdrenal and Paraganglionic TumorsFrench-language works237,207