Prognostic Implication of the Lymphangitic Carcinomatosis Pattern on Perfusion Lung Scan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Findings not associated with thromboembolic disease on routine perfusion lung scan may sometimes have particular clinical significance. We wanted to assess the clinical importance and overall survival after the recognition of a lymphangitic carcinomatosis pattern on perfusion lung scan. CASE REPORT: We report a case of lymphangitic carcinomatosis pattern on perfusion lung scan performed in a previously healthy patient who had rapid progressive course and died the next day. METHOD: A Medline search of case reports that describes either lymphangitic carcinomatosis or tumour microemboli on perfusion lung scan. RESULTS: There were a total of 32 patients identified in 21 articles from various countries, including our case. The studied perfusion pattern was reported more often in female patients (81%) was associated with a progressive history of dyspnea (69%) and normal or mild findings on chest radiograph (58%). Of the 29 patients with available outcome data, 79% (23/29) had a progressive course after the lung scan interpretation. In 18 of these 23 cases, the actual interval of survival was given: 67% of these patients (12/18) died within the first month. DISCUSSION: A lymphangitic carcinomatosis perfusion pattern on scintigraphic imaging is associated with a poor prognosis. Nuclear medicine physicians should be aware of this association and that raising the suspicion for a metastatic process may make a difference in the treatment plan of these patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".