MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Primary intracranial Ewing sarcoma with an unusually aggressive course: A case report and review of the literature

2011· article· en· W2100511028 on OpenAlexaff
Jantima Tanboon, Bunpot Sitthinamsuwan, Tewajetsada Paruang, Paula Marrano, Paul S. Thorner

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropathology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcomaMedicineEwing's sarcomaCraniotomyFluorescence in situ hybridizationPathologyChromosomal translocationHistologyRadiologyBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The occurrence of Ewing sarcoma-peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor as a primary intracranial tumor is very rare, with only 29 cases reported in the literature, 19 of which have included molecular studies. We present the clinical, radiologic and pathologic findings of an intracranial Ewing sarcoma in a 22-year-old woman arising from the dura over the right frontal convexity. The patient underwent craniotomy with gross total excision of the tumor. The tumor showed atypical histology and the diagnosis was confirmed by detection of a rearrangement of the EWSR1 gene by fluorescent in situ hybridization and identification of the diagnostic t(11;22)(q24;q12) translocation by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Additional features were detected in this tumor that are known to be associated with an unfavorable prognosis, including loss of p16 expression and gains of chromosomes 1q and 12. The patient experienced the most rapid downhill course reported to date for intracranial Ewing sarcoma, developing multiple extracranial metastases at 2 months and dying 6 months after the initial operation.

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)0.001
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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations32
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropathologySame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207