MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102070494 · doi:10.1136/jcp.2007.053124

Mucinous, gland predominant synovial sarcoma of a large peripheral nerve: a rare case closely mimicking metastatic mucinous carcinoma

2008· article· en· W2102070494 on OpenAlexaff
Ilan Weinreb, Bayardo Perez‐Ordoñez, Abhijit Guha, T-R Kiehl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologySynovial sarcomaSarcomaPerineural invasionSoft tissueMedicineMalignant peripheral nerve sheath tumorAnatomyBiologyImmunohistochemistryCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synovial sarcoma is a distinctive soft tissue neoplasm with monophasic and biphasic forms. It is typically a deep-seated soft tissue tumour of the extremities of young adults and occasional cases have been described in large peripheral nerves. A rare example has a predominance of the glandular component and may mimic metastatic carcinoma. Here, a unique synovial sarcoma with <1% spindle cell component involving the posterior tibial nerve is decribed. In addition to having only small bands or islands of stroma, there was also mucin dissection of the surrounding soft tissue. Isolated glands were seen "floating" in pools of mucin. There was abundant intracellular mucin present as well. These latter two findings have not been described in synovial sarcoma thus far, to our knowledge. The diagnosis was confirmed by molecular detection of the t(X;18) by reverse transcription-PCR and confirmed by dual colour break apart fluorescence in situ hybridisation, in a second laboratory. Mucinous, gland predominant synovial sarcoma must be recognised to avoid misdiagnosis of metastatic carcinoma or a glandular malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour when occurring in a peripheral nerve.

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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PathologySame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207