MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091535768 · doi:10.1055/s-0034-1372472

Synchronous Esthesioneuroblastoma and Growth-Hormone-Secreting Pituitary Macroadenoma: Combined Open and Endoscopic Management

2014· article· en· W2091535768 on OpenAlexaff
Costanza Valdes, Marc A. Tewfik, Marie‐Christine Guiot, Salvatore Di Maio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurological Surgery Reports · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEsthesioneuroblastomaMedicineDebulkingNasal cavityPituitary tumorsMagnetic resonance imagingSurgeryRadiation therapyRadiologyPathologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Esthesioneuroblastoma is an uncommon malignant neoplasm that arises from the olfactory neuroepithelium. In this article we report a case of esthesioneuroblastoma presenting concomitantly with a growth-hormone (GH)-secreting pituitary macroadenoma. Results A 52 year old woman underwent surgery for suspected nasal polyps. Intralesional debulking of an intranasal tumor disclosed a low-grade esthesioneuroblastoma. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated a large nasal and intracranial tumor, in addition to a separate sellar and suprasellar tumor. The patient was frankly acromegalic. She underwent a first-stage gross total resection of the esthesioneuroblastoma via a combined extended subfrontal and extended endonasal approach, followed by focused radiation therapy. She then returned for endoscopic removal of the GH-secreting pituitary macroadenoma. Conclusion The combined open and endoscopic management of this patient is described and a review of the literature presented. To our knowledge this is the first case of synchronous esthesioneuroblastoma and macroadenoma, in this case GH secreting, described in the literature.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurological Surgery ReportsSame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207