MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026619038 · doi:10.1097/pas.0000000000000167

Appendiceal or Cecal Endometriosis With Intestinal Metaplasia

2014· article· en· W2026619038 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Misdraji, Gregory Y. Lauwers, Julie Irving, Kenneth P. Batts, Robert H. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVictoria General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndometriosisAppendixMedicineMetaplasiaIntestinal metaplasiaPathologyDysplasiaCecumMucinous carcinomaLumen (anatomy)AdenocarcinomaGastroenterologyInternal medicineBiologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Appendiceal or cecal endometriosis uncommonly presents diagnostic challenges, but rare cases with intestinal metaplasia can mimic mucinous tumors of the appendix. We describe 6 cases of appendiceal or cecal endometriosis with intestinal metaplasia that grossly and microscopically mimicked appendiceal mucinous tumors. The cases were characterized by marked mural hypertrophy and elastosis, with distortion of the appendix, and virtual obliteration of the lumen of the appendix. All cases had conventional endometriosis, together with varying amounts of endometriosis with intestinal-type epithelium. In 2 cases, scant or virtually no stroma around some mucin-filled glands made their recognition as endometriosis more difficult. None of the cases had dysplasia of the mucinous epithelium. All patients had benign follow-up (mean 3.6 y). Endometriosis with intestinal metaplasia is a rare phenomenon that, when it occurs in the appendix or cecum, may lead to misdiagnosis as a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm or mucinous carcinoma.

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)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations35
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Surgical PathologySame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207