MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057940311 · doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i23.7518

Cronkhite-Canada syndrome: Report of six cases and review of literature

2014· review· en· W2057940311 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaoheng Wen

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastroenterology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyGastroenterologyFecal occult bloodInternal medicineDermatologyHyperpigmentationAbdominal painRashEdemaGastrointestinal tractDysplasiaColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cronkhite-Canada syndrome (CCS) is a rare nonfamilial polyposis syndrome characterized by epithelial disturbances in the gastrointestinal tract and skin. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical features and potential therapies for CCS. Six patients with CCS admitted from December 1992 to July 2008 to Peking Union Medical College Hospital were evaluated. All patients had clinical manifestation of nonhereditary gastrointestinal polyposis with diarrhea, skin hyperpigmentation, alopecia, and nail dystrophy. Fecal occult blood was positive in all six cases. Serum hemoglobin, potassium, calcium and protein were below the normal range in two cases. Anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae and antinuclear antibodies were present in three cases. Multiple polyps were found in all patients by gastroscopy and colonoscopy, with only one in the esophagus. Histologically, there were hyperplastic polyps in five cases, tubular adenoma in three, and juvenile polyp in one with chronic inflammation and mucosal edema. Comprehensive treatment led by corticosteroids can result in partial remission of clinical symptoms, and long-term follow-up is necessary.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations37
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207