MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065414041 · doi:10.1136/jcp.2006.041129

Papillary renal cell carcinoma within a renal oncocytoma: case report of an incidental finding of a tumour within a tumour

2007· article· en· W2065414041 on OpenAlexaff
Corwyn Rowsell, Neil Fleshner, Paula Marrano, Jeremy A. Squire, Andrew Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOncocytomaChromophobe cellRenal oncocytomaPathologyClear cellNephrectomyPapillary renal cell carcinomasKidneyRenal cell carcinomaMedicineBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most common renal tumours are clear cell, papillary, chromophobe and collecting duct renal cell carcinomas (RCCs), and benign oncocytomas and angiomyolipomas. Tumours with hybrid features between some of these entities have been recognised; in particular, tumours with features of both chromophobe RCC and oncocytoma. Case reports describing one distinct type of primary renal tumour actually within another are very rare. The incidental finding of a papillary RCC located in an oncocytoma in a nephrectomy specimen from a 75-year-old man is described. Morphological criteria for each tumour type were completely satisfied and fluorescence in situ hybridisation detected the expected number of copies of chromosome 7 in the cells of each tumour type. The cells in the papillary tumour contained three copies, whereas the oncocytoma cells contained only two per nucleus. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a papillary RCC being identified within an oncocytoma.

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)0.007
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
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations32
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PathologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207