MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013334898 · doi:10.1186/1477-7819-9-113

A review of duodenal metastases from squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix presenting as an upper gastrointestinal bleed

2011· review· en· W2013334898 on OpenAlexaff
Rani Kanthan, Jenna‐Lynn Senger, Dana Diudea, Selliah Kanthan

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Surgical Oncology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMetastasis and carcinoma case studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEsophagogastroduodenoscopyCervixBleedUpper gastrointestinal bleedingSurgical oncologyCancerRadiologyLesionCarcinomaPathologyInternal medicineSurgeryEndoscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to duodenal metastases is extremely uncommon. Extra-pelvic spread of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the cervix to the small bowel is rare with only 6 reported cases in the English literature since 1981(PubMed, Medline).We report the case of a 49-year-old woman who presented with upper-gastrointestinal bleeding two years after the diagnosis of SCC of the cervix. At esophagogastroduodenoscopy, there was a stricture in the second part of the duodenum which was biopsied for a suspected neoplastic lesion. Histologic and immunohistochemical examination showed a malignant lesion with characteristics identical to her original tumor in the cervix confirming the duodenal metastases.The clinical presentation of a 'malignant' upper-gastrointestinal bleed due to duodenal metastases from SCC of the cervix is unusual. Awareness of such infrequent patterns of metastases in cervical cancer confirmed by histopathological diagnosis is important for best practice therapeutic decisions in these patients.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations49
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Surgical OncologySame topicMetastasis and carcinoma case studiesFrench-language works237,207