MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016042801 · doi:10.1136/jcp.2009.070243

Multifocal “tapete” papillary fibroelastoma

2009· review· en· W2016042801 on OpenAlexaff
Kelsey B. Law, Katie R. Phillips, Robert J. Cusimano, Jagdish Butany

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac tumors and thrombi
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPapillary fibroelastomaFrondLesionMedicineAnatomyVentricular outflow tractPathologyMitral valveAortic valveRadiologyBiologySurgeryBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Papillary fibroelastomas (PFEs) are benign cardiac tumours that typically arise on diseased aortic or mitral valves. Usually solitary, PFEs are characterised by numerous frond-like branches attached to the valve surface by a single stalk, elastic tissue present within the central core, and the appearance of a sea anemone when immersed in water. PFEs have a predilection for men with a mean age of 56 years. A very rare case of a 25-year-old man with multiple lesions on the aortic and mitral valves and a large confluent "carpet-like" lesion in the left ventricular cavity is presented. Admitted with a significant left middle cerebral artery stroke and hemiplegia, investigations showed a left ventricular outflow tract lesion, with surgical excision displaying a multifocal "carpet-like" PFE. Histopathological examination showed various lesions presenting with a short stem, several fronds arising from each stem like a "tree trunk", and elastic tissue within the central core. This case is presented, along with a review of 833 reported cases of PFEs published after the year 2001. It is believed that this is the first reported instance of surgically resected and morphologically confirmed multiple PFEs seen and removed at one operation.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations28
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PathologySame topicCardiac tumors and thrombiFrench-language works237,207