MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112384136 · doi:10.1186/1477-7819-7-48

Management of appendiceal pseudomyxoma peritonei diagnosed during pregnancy

2009· review· en· W2112384136 on OpenAlexaff
Erika Haase, Dal Yoo, Paul H. Sugarbaker

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Surgical Oncology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePseudomyxoma peritoneiPregnancyAppendixSurgical oncologyRare diseaseObstetricsGestationSurgeryGynecologyDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The incidence of cancer during pregnancy is approximately 1 in 1000. The most common types encountered during pregnancy are cervical, breast and ovarian. Epithelial tumors of the appendix on the other hand are rare and account for only approximately 1% of all colorectal neoplasms; the occurrence of this neoplasm during pregnancy is extremely rare. CASE PRESENTATION: The medical history of a 30 year old woman diagnosed at 17 weeks gestation with an appendiceal mucinous tumor with large volume pseudomyxoma peritonei was presented. Her pregnancy was preserved and she had an early vaginal delivery of a healthy baby at 35 weeks. At 2 1/2 weeks postpartum the patient underwent extensive cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. She remains disease-free 5 years after her initial diagnosis. A literature review of this clinical situation and a discussion of treatment plans were presented. CONCLUSION: The management of an appendiceal tumor with pseudomyxoma peritonei diagnosed during pregnancy requires full knowledge of the natural history of this disease to achieve a balance of concern for maternal survival and fetal health.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.317 · 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
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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Surgical OncologySame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207