Pudendal schwannoma: A case report and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schwannomas are benign nerve sheath tumours most often associated with the cranial nerves and the peripheral nerve system of the neck and extremities. Pelvic schwannomas are rare, with only about 25 cases reported. We report the case of a 34-year-old man referred for worsening pain of 10 years duration involving the right testicle and right penile shaft. Magnetic resonance imaging discovered a well-circumscribed pelvic tumour of 3.2 × 2.8 × 3.2 cm. Considering the possible complications involved in exposing the pudendal nerve during surgical resection, we performed an extensive literature search to aid preoperative planning. The most commonly described surgical approach for pelvic schwannomas has been open median laparotomy with transperitoneal dissection. To our knowledge, pudendal schwannomas have never been described in the literature. However, after considering the location and characteristics of the tumour, we chose laparoscopy because it offers the advantages of better visualization of anatomical structures with minimal invasiveness and faster recovery. At the 3-week follow-up, the patient described a significant decrease in pain and normal neurological and urological examinations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".