MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014097973 · doi:10.1097/rlu.0b013e31817793bb

Intensity of FDG Uptake Is Not Everything

2008· article· en· W2014097973 on OpenAlexaff
Mathieu Charest, Amit Singnurkar, Marc Hickeson, J A. Novales, Vilma Derbekyan

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nuclear Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreLakeshore General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLesionFibrous dysplasiaLiposarcomaHypermetabolismSoft tissueMalignancyRadiologyDifferential diagnosisSarcomaTibiaPET-CTSoft tissue sarcomaPositron emission tomographyNuclear medicinePathologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing number of studies have demonstrated the usefulness of FDG PET-CT in the preoperative assessment of soft tissue sarcomas. We report a case of a patient with a known low-grade liposarcoma demonstrating only mild hypermetabolism on a FDG PET-CT study. An incidental osseous lesion was found in the distal tibia of the same extremity during the initial workup. This tibial lesion was significantly more intense on the FDG PET-CT study than the primary sarcoma. Further investigation showed this to be an unexpected benign fibrous dysplasia. We present this case as an example of the discrepancy of FDG activity, which may exist between truly malignant and benign lesions that may arise from soft tissue and osseous structures. A benign process should remain in the differential diagnosis for hypermetabolic lesions when evaluating a case of known malignancy, especially when the degree of uptake of that lesion differs significantly from that of the primary lesion.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Nuclear MedicineSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207