MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116361019 · doi:10.1186/2045-709x-22-8

Subtle clinical signs of a meningioma in an adult: a case report

2014· article· en· W2116361019 on OpenAlexaff
Andrée-Anne Marchand, Julie O’Shaughnessy

Bibliographic record

VenueChiropractic & Manual Therapies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeningiomaPresentation (obstetrics)Brain tumorChiropracticPopulationPhysical therapySurgeryPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Meningiomas are the most common brain tumor in the adult population. This case report describes the epidemiology, the clinical presentation as well as the current treatment options for this condition. Case presentation A 49 year-old man attended a chiropractic clinic with non-specific chronic low back pain. Upon the history taking and the systems review, he reported a loss of both smell and taste for which investigations conducted by two different otolaryngologists did not yield a specific diagnosis. The patient was referred to a neurologist who ordered a computer tomography scan that eventually revealed a compression brain tumor. Brain tumors can produce a large variety of clinical presentations, such as upper motor neuron lesion symptoms, altered consciousness or vital functions which are easy to identify. However, subtle signs, such as those presented in this case, can be neglected. Conclusion Clinicians should be aware of uncommon clinical presentations including cranial nerve or neurological dysfunction and refer their patient to a specialist when detected.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChiropractic & Manual TherapiesSame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207