The Multifaceted Granulosa Cell Tumours—Myths and Realities: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Granulosa cell tumors (GCTs), representing ~2% of ovarian tumours, are poorly understood neoplasms with unpredictable and undetermined biological behaviour. Design. 5 unusual presentations of GCT and a retrospective 14-year (1997-2011) surgical pathology review based on patient sex, age, tumour type and concurrent pathology findings are presented to discuss the "myths and realities" of GCTs in the context of relevant evidence-based literature. Results. The 5 index cases included (1) a 5 month-old boy with a left testicular mass, (2) a 7-day-old neonate with a large complex cystic mass in the abdomen, (3) a 76-year-old woman with an umbilical mass, (4) a 64-year-old woman with a complex solid-cystic pelvic mass, and (5) a 45 year-old woman with an acute abdomen. Pathological analysis confirmed the final diagnosis as (1) juvenile GCT, (2) macrofollicular GCT, (3) recurrent GCT 32 years later, (4) collision tumour: colonic adenocarcinoma and GCT, and (5) ruptured GCT. Conclusion. GCT is best considered as an unusual indolent neoplasm of low malignant potential with late recurrences that can arise in the ovaries and testicles in both the young and the old. Multifaceted clinical presentations coupled with the unpredictable biological behaviour with late relapses are diagnostic pitfalls necessitating a high degree of suspicion for accurate clinical and pathological diagnosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".