MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031154073 · doi:10.3747/co.21.1803

fdg-pet in Two Cases of Neurofibromatosis Type 1 and Atypical Malignancies

2014· article· en· W2031154073 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter de Blank, Kristina A. Cole, Leslie S. Kersun, A. Green, Jennifer J. Wilkes, Jean B. Belasco, Rochelle Bagatell, L. Charles Bailey, Michael J. Fisher

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma Cases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthCase Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University
KeywordsMedicineNeurofibromatosisPositron emission tomographyLymphomaFluorodeoxyglucosePathologyRadiologyHodgkin lymphomaNeurofibromatosis type IMalignant lymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 (nf1) are at increased risk for both benign and malignant tumours, and distinguishing the malignant potential of an individual tumour is a common clinical problem in these patients. Here, we review two cases of uncommon malignancies (Hodgkin lymphoma and mediastinal germ-cell tumour) in patients with nf1. Although (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography (fdg-pet) has been used to differentiate benign neurofibromas from malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours, fdg-pet characteristics for more rare tumours have been poorly described in children with nf1. Here, we report the role of pet imaging in clinical decision-making in each case. In nf1, fdg-pet might be useful in the clinical management of unusual tumour presentations and might help to provide information about the malignant potential of uncommon tumours.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.002
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma CasesFrench-language works237,207