MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081606621 · doi:10.14740/jh180w

Concurrent Presentation of High-Grade Lymphoma and Metastatic Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor 14 Years After Renal Transplant

2014· article· en· W2081606621 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Trisha M. Wise‐Draper, Julianne Qualtieri, G. Mogilishetty, Tahir Latif

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hematology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePresentation (obstetrics)Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumorLymphomaRenal transplantNeuroendocrine tumorsPathologyInternal medicineKidneyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of malignancy, especially lymphoma, is common after solid organ transplant. However, concurrent malignancies are rare and result in a diagnostic and treatment dilemma, particularly in the post-transplant setting. We present a case of a 78-year-old male who was discovered to have a high-grade post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) and metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (PNET) 14 years after kidney transplant. He presented with abdominal pain and at surgical resection was found to have a large small intestine tumor that was consistent with high-grade diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Immune suppression was reduced, and staging workup was completed. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) showed fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-avid metastatic lesions in the liver and a mass in the pancreatic head. Before treatment was initiated, biopsy of a liver lesion revealed metastatic PNET. Due to aggressiveness and potential high mortality of the lymphoma, he was started on rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP). After five cycles he developed worsening abdominal pain consistent with progression of the PNET and was placed on everolimus. Here we discuss the complexity of diagnosing concurrent primaries and the treatment of such in the post-transplant setting. J Hematol. 2014;3(4):112-115 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jh180w

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HematologySame topicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207