MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064001599 · doi:10.3109/01676830.2011.648806

Primary Pleomorphic Liposarcoma of the Orbit: A Case Report

2012· article· en· W2064001599 on OpenAlexaff
Madeline Doyle, Alexandre Nakao Odashiro, Patrícia M. R. Pereira, Maçanori Odashiro, Fernando Kobayashi, Ilton Shinzato, Miguel N. Burnier

Bibliographic record

VenueOrbit · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOrbit (dynamics)Differential diagnosisDiplopiaLiposarcomaRadiation therapyHistologyRadiologyPathologySurgerySarcoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To our knowledge, pleomorphic liposarcoma (PL) of the orbit has only been reported in the literature four times. This rarity makes it more difficult to diagnose and to treat in this clinical setting. A 62-year-old female presented with pruritus, edema, proptosis and diplopia 5 months OS. Imaging revealed an intraorbital mass displacing the globe, with infiltration into the sinus. The tumor was removed and the histological examination revealed a highly cellular tumor with heterogenous histology, with a few vacuolated cells and many malignant features. Immunohistochemistry allowed for the differential diagnosis, resulting in a diagnosis of PL of the orbit. The cells were immuno-positive for S-100 and negative for all other relevant markers. According to the literature, prognosis for this neoplasm is quite poor, and exenteration represents the best treatment option. The patient refused exenteration and radiation therapy, however, at 2 year follow-up, she remained recurrence-free.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrbitSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207