MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PSEUDOTUMORAL PRESENTATION OF A CERVICAL EXTRACRANIAL VERTEBRAL ARTERY ANEURYSM IN NEUROFIBROMATOSIS TYPE 1

2007· review· en· W2025163257 on OpenAlexaff
Matthieu Peyre, Augustin Ozanne, Ranjeev Bhangoo, Vítor Mendes Pereira, Marc Tadié, P. Lasjaunias, Fabrice Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma Cases
Canadian institutionsNovelis (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDigital subtraction angiographyVertebral arteryAneurysmNeurofibromatosisRadiologyLesionMagnetic resonance imagingAngiographyMagnetic resonance angiographyNeurofibromaNeurofibromatosis type ISurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1) is known to be associated with vascular lesions. Association with an extracranial vertebral artery aneurysm is very rare. We report the case of such an aneurysm mimicking a cervical neurofibroma in NF1. CLINICAL PRESENTATION: An 18-year-old woman with previously diagnosed NF1 presented with a C6 radiculopathy. There were no clinical features suggesting a vascular origin for the lesion. The computed tomographic and standard magnetic resonance imaging scans showed a C5-C6 contrast-enhancing lesion responsible for bony erosion. Subsequent, magnetic resonance angiography and digital subtraction angiography diagnosed the lesion as a C5-C6 vertebral artery aneurysm. INTERVENTION: The lesion was treated by endovascular occlusion of both the aneurysm and the parent vertebral artery with an initial immediate disappearance of the pain. CONCLUSION: This case serves as a reminder of the importance of ruling out a vertebral artery aneurysm with angiography when managing cervical lesions in patients with NF1.

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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations32
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma CasesFrench-language works237,207