MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075247763 · doi:10.4103/1742-6413.151667

Pulmonary artery intimal sarcoma diagnosed using endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration

2015· article· en· W2075247763 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy P. Caraway, Davide Salina, Michael T. Deavers, Rodolfo C. Morice, Gene Landon

Bibliographic record

VenueCytoJournal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac tumors and thrombi
Canadian institutionsRoyal Jubilee HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiologyBiopsySarcomaPulmonary arteryPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intimal sarcoma of the pulmonary artery is a rare intraluminal malignant neoplasm that has an aggressive biological behavior, and early diagnosis may improve patient outcome. We describe a case of pulmonary artery intimal sarcoma diagnosed on cytologic material obtained by endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) biopsy with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). The aspirate showed loosely cohesive clusters of pleomorphic malignant spindled and epithelioid cells. An immunostain panel did not demonstrate any definitive mesenchymal or epithelial differentiation. The tumor's intraluminal origin was supported by radiographic imaging studies. Subsequently, the patient received preoperative chemotherapy and underwent tumor resection with reconstruction. This report describes the cytomorphologic features of this rare intravascular tumor and demonstrates how EBUS-TBNA with ROSE was instrumental in obtaining optimal cytologic sampling for ancillary studies, thus expediting the management.

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)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytoJournalSame topicCardiac tumors and thrombiFrench-language works237,207