Pancreatic endocrine tumour with cytoplasmic keratin whorls. Is the term “rhabdoid” appropriate?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 50 year old woman presented with acute abdominal pain accompanied by nausea and vomiting and was found to have a mass in the head of the pancreas by imaging. The clinical impression was of a pancreatic carcinoma and a Whipple's procedure was performed. Microscopic examination of the tumour showed it to be a low grade neuroendocrine carcinoma arranged in a tubuloacinar or tubulopapillary pattern, and composed of cells harbouring very prominent intracytoplasmic inclusions. These inclusions varied in appearance from being pale pink and hyaline in quality to more eosinophilic and globular causing displacement of the nucleus. Ultrastructural examination showed typical paranuclear aggregates of intermediate filaments. Inclusions of this type have been described previously as "signet ring like" and "rhabdoid". It was felt that the inclusions more closely resemble the fibrous bodies that are seen in pituitary adenomas. In addition, it is suggested that both signet ring and rhabdoid are not appropriate because they do not reflect histogenesis and are not necessarily reflective of tumour biology. It is suggested that the term "cytokeratin aggresomes" should be used to describe this distinctive phenotype.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".