Fine‐needle aspiration biopsy of a glomus tumor of the stomach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A glomus tumor of the stomach was found as an incidental finding on routine ultrasound in a 72-yr-old asymptomatic woman. A fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) was performed and was initially interpreted as a well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm, possibly a carcinoid tumor. The aspirate revealed tightly packed nests or clusters of uniform, small, round to polygonal cells with scanty, faintly eosinophilic or clear cytoplasm and ill-defined cell borders. The nuclei were uniform, and round to oval, and contained a granular chromatin pattern and inconspicuous nucleoli. Very occasional intranuclear cytoplasmic inclusions were seen. Laparotomy and a wedge resection of the stomach were performed. The surgical pathology findings revealed a glomus tumor which was confirmed by immunohistochemical stains and ultrastructural studies. Since glomus tumors of the stomach are essentially benign and are amenable to conservative excision, it is important to separate them, preoperatively, from more aggressive gastric neoplasms. FNAB offers a rapid, cost-effective method of diagnosing this entity. We present the cytological, histological, ultrastructural, and immunocytochemical features of this particular gastric neoplasm, along with differential diagnoses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".