MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020607648

Metastasis of Oropharyngeal Carcinoma to the Site of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: Literature Review

2014· article· en· W2020607648 on OpenAlex
Radwan Kassir, Alaric Cavaille, Gabriele Barabino, Jean‐Marc Dumollard, Jack Porcheron

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Current Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomyPEG ratioSurgeryMetastasisCancerAbdominal wallHead and neck cancerInternal medicineRadiation therapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) are relatively uncommon. PEG site metastases are iatrogenic complications of PEG tube placement. The literature search revealed only a few descriptions of tumor implantation at the PEG site. The patient is a 62-year-old male with a history of alcoholism and tobacco abuse. He was diagnosed with stage IV (T4 N2M0) squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the piriform recess. A PEG tube was placed and he underwent wide resection of aerodigestive tract. One year later, the patient mentioned a granulation tissue forming around the tube site. An en bloc resection of the abdominal wall was performed. The postoperative histopathological findings were in accordance with the diagnosis of SCC. Herein, an extremely rare case of metastasis of an oropharyngeal cancer at a PEG stoma is described . Multiple theories of metastatic spread have been proposed. T he mean time to PEG site implantation was 8 months after insertion. In patients of whom the interval between PEG placement and diagn osis of metastasis was 1 ye ar, Douglas et al concluded that hem atogenous spread is less likely than direct implantation of cells. The exact mechanism of abdominal wall metastasis in our patient still remains unclear. In our case, the time to PEG site implantation was 1 year and lymph nodes were invaded before PEG placement (T4 N2M0). Metastatic cancer should be evoked when skin changes at the PEG site in patients with head-and-neck cancer. J Curr Surg. 2014;4(2):46-48 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcs223w

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.288 · 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