MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091057711 · doi:10.5430/jst.v2n5p54

Mucoceles of the appendix mimicking ovarian cysts

2012· article· en· W2091057711 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Philipp Pecnik, Regina Promberger, Johannes Ott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Solid Tumors · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMucoceleMedicineAppendixAsymptomaticRadiologyAbdomenAdnexal massSurgeryCystadenocarcinomaOvarian cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This review focuses on appendiceal mucoceles that have been reported to incidentally mimic ovarian cysts and put the patient at risk of misdiagnosis and, thus, inadequate treatment. Methodology: Review of the literature. Principal findings: Benign mucoceles are the most common form of appendiceal mucoceles and represent about 63-84%, whereas a malignancy is found in 11-20%. Patient presentation is extremely variable for all forms, with, first and foremost, nonspecific symptoms, and patients may also be completely asymptomatic. Thus, the majority of appendiceal mucoceles are discovered incidentally. Women with ovarian cysts also frequently report abdominal pain or nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms, with about 10% of patients being asymptomatic. Gynecologists perform transvaginal ultrasound as a standard procedure to evaluate pelvic tumors from the uterus, tubes, or ovaries. The ultrasound appearance of appendiceal mucoceles can vary widely from well-encapsulated purely cystic lesions with anechoic fluid, hypoechoic masses with fine internal echoes, or complex hyperechoic masses. Thus, they can mimic ovarian cysts. However, a specific ultrasonographic marker is the so-called “onion skin sign” and its “dumbbell structure”. Even when an appendiceal mucocele is detected during gynecologic surgery, the appropriate surgical treatment would be an open approach, ideally combined with an intraoperative frozen section examination. The gynecologist might choose not to continue with the operation, instead performing the excision of the appendiceal mucocele as a two-step procedure. Conclusion/Significance: We advise gynecologists to consider the possibility of an appendiceal neoplasm, especially when a dumbbell structure in the lower right abdomen is found on ultrasound. If an appendiceal mucocele is incidentally diagnosed during surgery, a laparotomic approach is recommended if the operation is continued. This should be performed by a general surgeon.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Solid TumorsSame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207