MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022889311 · doi:10.1186/s12893-015-0036-y

Kikuchi-Fujimoto lymphadenitis imitating metastatic melanoma on positron emission tomography: a case report

2015· article· en· W2022889311 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Urbanellis, Laura Chin‐Lenn, Carolin Teman, J. Gregory McKinnon

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphadenopathy Diagnosis and Analysis
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesQueen's UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePositron emission tomographyMelanomaRadiologyLymph nodeHistopathologyBiopsyFine-needle aspirationNuclear medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Accurate staging is critical for decision-making for the treatment of malignant conditions. Fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (FDG PET-CT) is a highly sensitive imaging modality for the assessment of distant metastases; however false positive results are possible due to its lower specificity with detection of other hypermetabolic pathologies. CASE PRESENTATION: A patient with high-risk thigh melanoma was staged with FDG PET-CT. Four ipsilateral inguinal nodes (three superficial, one deep) demonstrated intense hypermetabolic activity. Metastatic melanoma was confirmed in the largest superficial inguinal node with ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Histopathology demonstrated metastatic melanoma in one superficial node and histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis, also known as Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease in five deep inguinal nodes. CONCLUSION: This case illustrates a false positive FDG PET-CT due to coincidental, synchronous melanoma and Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease in the same draining lymph node basin.

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)0.004
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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC SurgerySame topicLymphadenopathy Diagnosis and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207