MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078017523 · doi:10.1155/2013/702536

Small Intestinal Tumours

2013· article· en· W2078017523 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcela Kopáčová, Stanislav Rejchrt, Jan Bureš, Ilja Tachecí

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Research and Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnteroscopyPeutz–Jeghers syndromeLipomaSmall intestineCapsule endoscopyHamartomaGastroenterologyTubular adenomaColonoscopyRadiologyInternal medicinePathologyEndoscopyCancerColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. Balloon enteroscopy (BE) and capsule enteroscopy (CE) are enteroscopy methods that allow examination and treatment of the small bowel. Before the CE and BE era, the small intestine was difficult to access for investigation. Small intestinal tumours are infrequent conditions, but about half of them are malignant. Materials and Methods. A total of 303 BEs were performed in 179 patients. Oral insertion was performed in 240 and anal in 63 BEs. Indications for the procedure in our patients with small bowel tumours were anaemia and/or bleeding, obstruction, suspicion of carcinoid tumour, or suspicion of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Results. In 50 of our 179 patients (28%), we diagnosed some small intestinal tumours: hamartomas in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome in 16 patients, adenocarcinoma in 7, lymphoma in 6, carcinoid tumour in 4, melanoma and stromal tumour in 3, adenoma, lipoma, and inflammatory polyps in 2, and granular cell tumour, cavernous lymphangioma, fibrolipoma, Cronkhite-Canada polyps, and metastatic involvement in individual cases. Conclusion. BE facilitates exploration and treatment of the small intestine. The procedure is generally safe and useful. BE and CE are essential modalities for the management of small intestinal diseases.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology Research and PracticeSame topicGastrointestinal disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207