MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104795776 · doi:10.1309/52xxr6e6u0j2jx0f

The Spectrum of Pulmonary Mucinous Cystic Neoplasia

2005· review· en· W2104795776 on OpenAlexaff
Zu‐Hua Gao, Stefan J. Urbanski

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging and Pathology Studies
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePathologyAtypiaMucinous cystadenomaMucinous cystadenocarcinomaParenchymaChest radiographLungCystadenocarcinomaAdenocarcinomaRadiologyCancerInternal medicineOvary

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe 10 new cases and review 66 previously reported cases of primary pulmonary mucinous cystic neoplasia (PMCN). The 3 men and 7 women were 44 to 73 years old (mean, 60.0 years) at diagnosis. Lesions were found by chest radiograph (featuring a solitary, lobulated nodule with soft tissue density that enlarged slowly), or patients had major bronchial occlusion by mucus or hemoptysis. Tumors were well-circumscribed, lobulated soft masses with a central cavity filled with gray to greenish translucent mucus and were 1.5 to 5.5 cm in greatest dimension (mean, 3.3 cm). Microscopically, confluent lakes of mucin characterized all cases. Tumor epithelium ranged from bland to focal cytologic atypia to frankly malignant. The adjacent lung parenchyma was stretched, compressed, or showed an inflammatory reaction to dissected mucin. After 1- to 10-year follow-up (mean, 3.7 years), 3 patients died of metastasis and 1 of amitriptyline toxic effects; 6 were alive without tumor. Combined analysis of our cases and previously reported cases suggests a histologic spectrum from benign cystadenoma to mucinous cystic tumor with atypia to well-differentiated mucinous cystadenocarcinoma. The histomorphologic criteria derived from this analysis can help distinguish PMCN from other types of primary or metastatic mucinous tumors and predict outcome.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations67
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical PathologySame topicMedical Imaging and Pathology StudiesFrench-language works237,207