MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder: A pictorial review

2006· review· en· W2008857130 on OpenAlexaff
Kashif Burney, Melanie Bradley, Anne F. Buckley, Iain Lyburn, Adam Rye, R Hopkins

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Radiology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral-associated cancers and disorders
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphoproliferative disordersLymphomaLymphoproliferative diseasePost-transplant lymphoproliferative disorderTransplantationOrgan transplantationComplicationDiseaseSolid organBiopsyRadiologyPathologySurgeryRituximab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) is a serious and potentially fatal complication after solid organ and haemopoietic stem cell transplantation. The frequency of PTLD varies with the type of organ transplant but overall it affects 2-10% of all solid organ transplant recipients. Most cases develop within 1 year after the transplant, although occasional cases present 5-10 years later. Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder is clinically and pathologically heterogeneous - the majority are of the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma type, whereas Hodgkin's lymphoma arising after transplantation is rare. We have retrospectively reviewed patients with a histological diagnosis of PTLD after a solid organ transplant. We present the imaging features and a clinical review of this condition. Early diagnosis of PTLD may alter the management and outcome of the disease. The radiologist can play a vital role in establishing the diagnosis by imaging features supplemented with percutaneous biopsy and also in monitoring the disease response to treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian RadiologySame topicViral-associated cancers and disordersFrench-language works237,207