MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066172816 · doi:10.3747/co.v17i5.606

Extraskeletal Myxoid Chondrosarcoma of the Heart and Review of Current Literature

2010· article· en· W2066172816 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Holly L. Geyer, Nina J. Karlin

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac tumors and thrombi
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntracardiac injectionHistopathologyPathologyRadiologyChondrosarcomaSoft tissueMyxomaMyxoid liposarcomaBiopsySarcomaSurgeryLiposarcoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma (EMS) is a rare oncologic phenomenon characterized by chondroid and neurogenic differentiation in extraskeletal locations. These tumours represent fewer than 2.5% of all soft-tissue sarcomas and are most commonly found in the lower extremities, limb girdles, distal extremities, and trunk. Their presence in cardiac tissue is exceedingly unusual; just a single case of ems metastatic to the heart has been reported, and no cases of primary cardiac EMS are known.Here, we report the case of a 26-year-old man who presented to his physician with a chest wall mass. Further evaluation led to the discovery of a large intracardiac mass with multiple end-organ growths. Complete work-up of this patient included cardiac biopsy, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron-emission tomography, computed tomography, and fluorescence in situ hybridization studies for the translocation involving the EWSR1 gene locus (22q12). Results of the foregoing studies confirmed the diagnosis of ems, but the origin of this patient's tumours remains elusive and the contention between a primary cardiac source and cardiac metastasis has yet to be resolved.This article describes the histopathology, immunohistochemistry, and chromosomal aberrations common to ems, together with the common presenting features, natural history, and prognosis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicCardiac tumors and thrombiFrench-language works237,207