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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".