MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069699488 · doi:10.1159/000327280

Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy of Epithelioid Angiomyolipoma

2001· article· en· W2069699488 on OpenAlexaff
Hossein M. Yazdi, Garth Perkins, Anthony Thijssen

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Cytologica · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberous Sclerosis Complex Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngiomyolipomaEpithelioid cellMedicinePathologyBiopsyFine-needle aspirationHMB-45Renal cell carcinomaDifferential diagnosisClear cellGiant cellKidneyImmunohistochemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Epithelioid angiomyolipoma (AMYL) is a variant of angiomyolipoma characterized by sheets of epithelioid cells that may mimic renal cell carcinoma. This is the first report describing the fine needle aspiration biopsy features of this lesion. CASE: A 47-year-old man with a history of epithelioid angiomyolipoma of the kidney treated with nephrectomy nine months previously presented with a recurrent retroperitoneal mass and multiple nodular liver lesions. Fine needle aspiration biopsy of one of the liver lesions showed fragments and sheets of noncohesive epithelioid cells with thin cytoplasm, markedly atypical nuclei, and scattered bizarre and multinucleated forms. The epithelioid cells focally expressed HMB-45 and were nonimmunoreactive, with epithelial markers. CONCLUSION: Epithelioid AMYL may pose differential diagnostic problems with high grade carcinoma, especially renal cell, hepatocellular and metastatic carcinoma. An awareness of this entity and its characteristic cytologic features and immunoreactivity with HMB-45 is helpful in its identification.

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)0.002
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations40
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa CytologicaSame topicTuberous Sclerosis Complex ResearchFrench-language works237,207