MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059914711 · doi:10.1001/archneurol.2009.74

Occurrence of Basal Ganglia Germ Cell Tumors Without a Mass

2009· article· en· W2059914711 on OpenAlexaff
Salah Almubarak, Y. C. Gan, Paul Steinbok, Glenda Hendson, Ken Poskitt, Helen Nadel, Karen Goddard, Juliette Hukin

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Neurology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBasal gangliaCalcificationMagnetic resonance imagingPositron emission tomographyPathologyGerminomaAtrophyRadiologyRadiation therapyCentral nervous systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To report a case series in which basal ganglia calcifications without mass effect proved to be germ cell tumors. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Four patients. INTERVENTIONS: Computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, biopsy, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recognition of clinical syndrome and radiological features. RESULTS: All patients had progressive hemiparesis, and 1 patient also had frontal lobe dementia. Imaging demonstrated progressive asymmetric signal abnormality with basal ganglia calcification and associated brainstem atrophy. Fludeoxyglucose F 18-positron emission tomography showed hypometabolism in contrast to malignant glioma. CONCLUSION: Germ cell tumor should be considered in patients with an indolently progressive neurological course, particularly if basal ganglia calcification is present with or without enhancement, asymmetric brain atrophy, or a mass.

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)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of NeurologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207