MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027968559 · doi:10.1148/rg.304095745

Clinical Syndromes Associated with Ovarian Neoplasms: A Comprehensive Review<sup/>

2010· review· en· W2027968559 on OpenAlexaff
Krishna Shanbhogue, Divya Krishna Prasad Shanbhogue, Srinivasa R. Prasad, Venkateswar R. Surabhi, Najla Fasih, Christine O. Menias

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiographics · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Trophoblastic Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDysgerminomaGerm cell tumorsChoriocarcinomaHuman chorionic gonadotropinLeydig Cell TumorEndocrine systemPathologyHormoneInternal medicineOncologyOvaryLeydig cellLuteinizing hormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional ovarian neoplasms have unique clinical manifestations related to hormone overproduction and may give rise to a broad spectrum of clinical syndromes. Sex cord-stromal tumors, the most common functional ovarian neoplasms, are associated with either hyperestrogenism (as in granulosa cell tumor and thecoma) or hyperandrogenism (as in Sertoli-Leydig cell tumor and Leydig cell tumor). Other, less common ovarian neoplasms that may have endocrine or nonendocrine syndromic manifestations include germ cell tumors associated with the excessive production of human chorionic gonadotropin (eg, choriocarcinoma, dysgerminoma), monodermal teratomas (eg, carcinoid tumor, struma ovarii) associated with carcinoid syndrome and hyperthyroidism, and primary epithelial ovarian cancers associated with paraneoplastic syndromes. The application of diagnostic algorithms based on patient demographic information, clinical manifestations, laboratory findings, and cross-sectional imaging features may help identify ovarian neoplasms in complex clinical settings.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations114
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiographicsSame topicGestational Trophoblastic Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207