Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe five cases in which adenomatoid tumors showed extensive necrosis, presumably due to infarction, and posed diagnostic difficulty. The tumors occurred in four males (three with epididymal tumors and one with an intratesticular tumor) and one female (with a parafallopian tube tumor) 35 to 44 years of age. Two of the men presented with acute scrotal pain simulating epididymitis, and two with a palpable mass. The parafallopian tube tumor was an incidental finding. The tumors were solitary, grossly well-circumscribed, uniformly solid masses that ranged in size from 1.1 to 3.5 cm. Microscopically, they were all characterized by central necrosis with pale mummified adenomatoid tumor identified at least focally but often overshadowed by nondescript necrotic tissue. Viable adenomatoid tumor was identified in all cases but was minor in amount in two of them. The necrosis was surrounded by a florid reactive process of fibroblasts and myofibroblasts that had plump nuclei often with prominent nucleoli, and occasional mitoses. Two of the epididymal cases had adjacent rete testis showing epithelial hyperplasia with hyaline globule formation. The microscopic appearance often suggested the possibility of a malignant neoplasm because of: 1) blurring of the normal relatively easily identifiable junction between adenomatoid tumor and adjacent tissue; 2) irregular pseudo-infiltration of fat by reactive tissue and adenomatoid tumor; 3) paucity of typical adenomatoid tumor due to the infarction and the fact that viable tumor usually showed a solid pattern; and 4) atypia of the associated reactive cells. This unemphasized feature of adenomatoid tumors may potentially lead to more aggressive therapy than warranted if it is not correctly interpreted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".